No abstract

Background Interoception plays a vital role in human cognition and emotion and is an increasingly important part of clinical studies of mind–body approaches and mental health. Interoceptive awareness (IA) encompasses numerous mind–body components and can be assessed by employing a self-report measure such as the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), which has been adapted and validated across several countries and is used in experimental and clinical settings. In this study, the MAIA-2, which was developed due to the psychometric shortages of MAIA, was thoroughly translated, and its psychometric features were examined in a sample of 306 Norwegian-speaking participants (81% females, ages 16 through 66 plus). Methods The participants completed the MAIA-2 Norwegian version (MAIA-2-N) and the COOP/WONCA Functional Assessment Charts measuring psychological, physical, and overall health. The following psychometric qualities of the MAIA-2 were investigated: factor structure, internal consistency, and the moderating role of gender. Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) revealed that an 8-factor model of MAIA-2-N provided the best fit. Also, a bifactor model revealed a proper fit. Good internal consistency and a moderating role of gender, age, and education on the relationships between certain MAIA-2-N factors and health were observed. Conclusions The MAIA-2-N is an adequate measure of IA in Norwegian-speaking individuals. The factor-structure corresponds with the original MAIA-2 and it shows good internal consistency. Some moderating effects of gender were observed, particularly related to the relationship between IA and physical and psychological state, with the physical state/fitness more closely linked to IA in males and psychological state in females.

Objective This study compared cognitive control (working memory, interference control, perseveration) and cognitive emotion regulation among Iranian women with depression who had attempted suicide, had only suicidal ideation, and healthy controls. Method Participants (N = 75) completed a clinical interview, cognitive control tasks, and the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Results Those with suicidal ideation or previous attempts had poorer cognitive control and cognitive emotion regulation than controls. Furthermore, those who had attempted suicide had poorer cognitive control and reported greater use of self‐blame, rumination, and catastrophizing, and less use of acceptance, than those with suicidal ideation only. There was an indirect effect of cognitive control deficits on suicidality through cognitive emotion regulation (self‐blame, acceptance, rumination, catastrophizing). Conclusions Exploring these cognitive deficits and difficulties can assist in further understanding the risk factors for suicidality and improve targeted interventions. This is of particular relevance in Iran where the need for policies and interventions targeting the prevention of suicide has been identified.

No abstract

No abstract