Do markers of daily affect mediate associations between interpretation bias and depressive symptoms? A longitudinal study of early adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early adolescence represents a time of heightened vulnerability for depression. Negative interpretation biases have been associated with increases in depressive symptoms during this developmental period; however, the mechanisms underlying the association between interpretation biases and depression remain poorly understood. Cognitive theories posit that interpretation biases give rise to depression by modulating daily affect, particularly in the context of stress. However, this has not yet been directly examined. The present study tested affect intensity and instability as mechanisms linking negative interpretation biases with change in adolescent depressive symptoms. METHODS: Ninety-four adolescents (aged 11-13 years; 51% boys) from Vancouver, Canada, were recruited for this longitudinal study. At baseline (Time 1), participants self-reported depressive symptoms and completed the Scrambled Sentences Task to assess negative interpretation biases. Next, participants completed daily diaries to assess positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) during a naturalistic stressor-the first 2 weeks of high school (Time 2). Finally, participants self-reported depressive symptoms 3 months later (Time 3). Path models were conducted to test whether PA and NA intensity and instability mediated prospective associations between negative interpretation biases and depressive symptom changes. RESULTS: Although NA intensity, NA instability, and PA instability predicted increases in depressive symptoms, only NA intensity mediated associations between interpretation biases and symptom changes. Neither PA intensity nor instability mediated these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated daily NA represents a specific mechanism through which stronger negative interpretation biases predict increases in depressive symptoms in adolescence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".