Cognitive biases among early adolescents with elevated symptoms of anxiety, depression, and co‐occurring symptoms of anxiety‐depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anxiety and depression are often highly correlated in adolescence, and cognitive biases are commonly associated with both types of symptoms. The purpose of this study was to examine cognitive biases in early adolescents showing: (a) elevated symptoms of anxiety; (b) elevated symptoms of depression; (c) elevated co‐occurring symptoms of anxiety and depression; and (d) neither elevated symptoms of anxiety nor depression (comparison group). In particular, we were interested in the extent to which certain cognitive biases showed symptom specificity. Participants were N = 686 10‐ to 14‐year‐olds, who provided self‐reports of anxiety, depression, and measures of cognitive biases. Four groups were created based on quartile cutoffs: anxious , depressed , anxious‐depressed , and comparison . Among the results from multivariate analysis of variance, the anxious group thought negative events were more costly as compared to the depressed group. In contrast, the depressed group was higher in terms of negative causal attributions, overgeneralizing, selective abstraction, and negative views of the self, world, and future. The anxious‐depressed group showed an overall more negative pattern of cognitive biases than all other groups. Symptoms of anxiety and depression are distinguishable in terms of certain cognitive biases, and the co‐occurrence of symptoms is indicative of a particularly negative pattern of thinking. These findings have implications for intervention programs that could target specific cognitive biases. Highlights Are distinct patterns of cognitive biases evident among early adolescents with symptoms of anxiety, symptoms of depression, and co‐occurring symptoms of anxiety and depression? We collected self reports of cognitive biases. We also collected self reports of anxiety, depression, and cognitive biases, and created the following groups: 1) anxious; 2) depressed; 3) anxious‐depressed; 4) comparison. Symptoms of anxiety and depression are distinguishable in terms of certain cognitive biases, and symptom co‐occurrence may indicate a particularly maladaptive pattern of thinking.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".