Experimental study shows cognitive flexibility and world assumptions predict attentional bias and processing in trauma, suggesting pathways for intervention.
Objective: This experimental study investigated whether the trait factors of world assumptions and cognitive flexibility were predictive of levels of attentional bias to threat stimuli, memory integration, and data-driven processing. Methods: An opportunity sample of 74 participants took part in the investigation. Participants viewed a virtual reality film to induce mild distress to mimic processes that can occur in individuals when experiencing a traumatic event. A prospective experimental design was conducted involving measurements at pre-trauma exposure (Time 1), post-exposure (Time 2) and one-week follow-up (Time 3). Self-report measures of world assumptions, cognitive flexibility, and cognitive processing were administered. Eye-tracking equipment was used to assess attentional bias towards threat images, and a free recall task to assess memory integration. Results: A mixed effects linear model found increased cognitive bias towards trauma-related threat images pre/post-exposure, specifically for a maintenance attentional bias. Significantly greater data-driven processing was observed post-exposure, with greater conceptually driven processing observed at one-week follow-up. No significant findings were observed for memory integration. World assumptions were predictive of increased data-driven processing; the relative use of data-driven to conceptually driven processing; and trait anxiety. Cognitive flexibility was predictive of state anxiety. Conclusion: These results provide additional support for the role of maintained attention, data-driven processing, and conceptually driven processing in post-trauma reactions as per established cognitive theories of post-traumatic stress disorder. More research is required to fully explore the roles of core beliefs, assumptions and cognitive flexibility in this area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McClements et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: