No abstract

Background and Objectives Findings on disclosure and adjustment following traumatic events have been mixed. Better understanding of individual differences in disclosure may help us better understand reactions following trauma exposure. In particular, studying disclosure patterns for those with and without psychopathology and for different types of emotional experiences may help clarify the relationship between disclosure, event emotionality, trauma exposure, and PTSD. Methods In this study, 143 men and women with (n = 67) and without (n = 43) chronic PTSD and without trauma exposure (n = 33) provided information on disclosure for a traumatic/severe life event, a negative event, and a positive event. Results Individuals with PTSD reported greater difficulty disclosing their traumatic event compared to those with trauma exposure no PTSD and those with no-trauma exposure. However, individuals with PTSD reported disclosing the traumatic event a similar number of times and with similar levels of detail to those with trauma exposure but no PTSD. Both sexual and childhood trauma were associated with greater disclosure difficulty. Limitations Although control event types (positive, negative) were selected to control for the passage of time and for general disclosure style, they do not control for salience of the event and results may be limited by control events that were not highly salient. Conclusions The present findings point to a dynamic conceptualization of disclosure, suggesting that the differential difficulty of disclosing traumatic events seen in individuals with PTSD is not simply a function of the amount of disclosure or the amount of details provided.

Cognitive abnormalities in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be a function of underlying inhibitory deficits. Prepulse inhibition (PPI) and attentional blink (AB) are paradigms thought to assess inhibition. Using a sample of 28 individuals with PTSD compared to 20 trauma-exposed and 19 healthy individuals, PPI was examined using white noise that was preceded by a tone, and AB was examined using a presentation of letters in a stream of numbers. Relative to the control group, the PTSD and trauma-exposed groups did not follow the u-shaped pattern in AB, suggesting trauma-exposure and subsequent PTSD are associated with similar impairment in attention. Individuals with PTSD showed reduced PPI compared to trauma-exposed and healthy individuals, suggesting individuals with PTSD exhibit faulty automatic processing. For individuals with PTSD, PTSD severity was associated with a decline in PPI. These findings suggest a general faulty inhibitory mechanism associated with trauma exposure and PTSD.

Objective: Determine whether a novel psychosocial treatment for positive affect improves clinical status and reward sensitivity more than a form of cognitive behavioral therapy that targets negative affect and whether improvements in reward sensitivity correlate with improvements in clinical status. Method: In this assessorblinded, parallel-group, multisite, two-arm randomized controlled clinical superiority trial, 85 treatmentseeking adults with severely low positive affect, moderate-to-severe depression or anxiety, and functional impairment received 15 weekly individual therapy sessions of positive affect treatment (PAT) or negative affect treatment (NAT). Clinical status measures were self-reported positive affect, interviewer-rated anhedonia, and self-reported depression and anxiety. Target measures were eleven physiological, behavioral, cognitive, and self-report measures of reward anticipation-motivation, response to reward attainment, and reward learning. All analyses were intent-to-treat. Results: Compared to NAT, individuals receiving PAT achieved superior improvements in the multivariate clinical status measures at posttreatment, b = .37, 95% CI [.15, .59], t(109) = 3.34, p = .001, q = .004, d = .64. Compared to NAT, individuals receiving PAT also achieved higher multivariate reward anticipation-motivation, b = .21, 95% CI [.05, .37], t(268) = 2.61, p = .010, q = .020, d = .32, and higher multivariate response to reward attainment, b = .24, 95% CI [.02, .45], t(266) = 2.17, p = .031, q = .041, d = .25, at posttreatment. Measures of reward learning did not differ between the two groups. Improvements in reward anticipation-motivation and in response to reward attainment correlated with improvements in the clinical status measures. Conclusions: Targeting positive affect results in superior improvements in clinical status and reward sensitivity than targeting negative affect. This is the first demonstration of differential target engagement across two psychological interventions for anxious or depressed individuals with low positive affect. What is the public health significance of this article?This study demonstrates that positive affect treatment was significantly more effective than an intervention that targeted negative affect for adults with severely low positive affect, moderate-tosevere depression or anxiety, and functional impairment. The findings of this study suggest that positive affect treatment improves positive affect and aspects of reward hyposensitivity.

Individual differences in one's propensity to engage the behavioral activation system (BAS) and behavioral inhibition system (BIS) have primarily been studied with Caver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scale. Whereas, Carver and White identified the BIS as a unidimensional scale, they identified three separable BAS group factors -drive, fun seeking, and reward responsivenesswhich Carver urged against combining into a BAS total score. Despite this, a BAS total score has been used extensively although researchers have yet to test whether a BAS general factor exists and, if so, whether a BAS total score can be interpreted as primarily being a measure of the general factor. The current study observed that the best fitting BAS factor model of those we tested was a hierarchical model with three group facets and a general factor. This model was largely invariant across both sex and race/ethnicity. We show, for the first time, that a general factor accounts for the majority of the variance in BAS total scores. Due to the superior fit of the hierarchical model and variance accounted for by the general factor, we conclude that researchers are psychometrically justified in using a BAS total score.