Abstract：
We aimed to investigate the effects of directly manipulating response style to simulated voice hearing on emotional and cognitive outcomes in a non-clinical population.
A between-subjects design with one independent variable, response style (with two levels: mindful acceptance vs attentional avoidance). The dependent variables were subjective distress and anxiety (primary outcomes) and performance on a sustained attention task (secondary outcomes).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two response styles (mindful acceptance vs. attentional avoidance). They completed a computerised attention task (continuous performance task) whilst listening to a simulation of voice hearing. Participants rated their experience of anxiety and distress before and after completing the sustained attention task which was used to measure their accuracy and response times.
One hundred and one participants took part (mindful acceptance (n = 54); attentional avoidance (n = 47)). There were no statistically significant group differences on post-test distress and anxiety scores, correct response rate or response times on the computerised attention task. Participants reported a range of different response styles along the spectrum of avoidance to acceptance, but this had no association with their assigned experimental condition. Adherence to task instructions was therefore low.
We are unable to conclude from this study whether experimentally inducing people to respond to voices under cognitively demanding conditions in an avoidant or accepting way has an impact on their emotional or cognitive outcomes. Further research should focus on the development of more robust and reliable procedures for inducing differences in response style under experimental conditions.
A between-subjects design with one independent variable, response style (with two levels: mindful acceptance vs attentional avoidance). The dependent variables were subjective distress and anxiety (primary outcomes) and performance on a sustained attention task (secondary outcomes).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two response styles (mindful acceptance vs. attentional avoidance). They completed a computerised attention task (continuous performance task) whilst listening to a simulation of voice hearing. Participants rated their experience of anxiety and distress before and after completing the sustained attention task which was used to measure their accuracy and response times.
One hundred and one participants took part (mindful acceptance (n = 54); attentional avoidance (n = 47)). There were no statistically significant group differences on post-test distress and anxiety scores, correct response rate or response times on the computerised attention task. Participants reported a range of different response styles along the spectrum of avoidance to acceptance, but this had no association with their assigned experimental condition. Adherence to task instructions was therefore low.
We are unable to conclude from this study whether experimentally inducing people to respond to voices under cognitively demanding conditions in an avoidant or accepting way has an impact on their emotional or cognitive outcomes. Further research should focus on the development of more robust and reliable procedures for inducing differences in response style under experimental conditions.
摘要：
目的：我们旨在研究在非临床人群中直接操纵模拟语音听觉反应方式对情绪和认知结果的影响。
方法：具有一个独立变量的受试者间设计，反应风格(有两个层面：有意识的接受和注意力的回避)。因变量是主观痛苦和焦虑（主要结果）以及持续注意力任务的表现（次要结果）。
方法：参与者被随机分配到两种反应方式中的一种（注意接受与注意回避)。他们在听语音听觉模拟的同时完成了计算机注意力任务（连续执行任务）。参与者在完成持续关注任务之前和之后评估了他们的焦虑和痛苦经历，该任务用于衡量他们的准确性和响应时间。
结果：一百一十参与者参加了（注意接受（n=54）；注意回避（n=47））。测试后的痛苦和焦虑评分没有统计学上的显著组间差异,对计算机注意力任务的正确响应率或响应时间。参与者报告了一系列不同的反应方式，从避免到接受，但这与他们指定的实验条件无关。因此，对任务说明的依从性很低。
结论：我们无法从这项研究中得出结论，实验诱导人们在认知要求苛刻的条件下以回避或接受的方式对声音做出反应是否会影响他们的情绪或认知结果。进一步的研究应集中在开发更强大和可靠的程序，以在实验条件下诱导反应方式的差异。
方法：具有一个独立变量的受试者间设计，反应风格(有两个层面：有意识的接受和注意力的回避)。因变量是主观痛苦和焦虑（主要结果）以及持续注意力任务的表现（次要结果）。
方法：参与者被随机分配到两种反应方式中的一种（注意接受与注意回避)。他们在听语音听觉模拟的同时完成了计算机注意力任务（连续执行任务）。参与者在完成持续关注任务之前和之后评估了他们的焦虑和痛苦经历，该任务用于衡量他们的准确性和响应时间。
结果：一百一十参与者参加了（注意接受（n=54）；注意回避（n=47））。测试后的痛苦和焦虑评分没有统计学上的显著组间差异,对计算机注意力任务的正确响应率或响应时间。参与者报告了一系列不同的反应方式，从避免到接受，但这与他们指定的实验条件无关。因此，对任务说明的依从性很低。
结论：我们无法从这项研究中得出结论，实验诱导人们在认知要求苛刻的条件下以回避或接受的方式对声音做出反应是否会影响他们的情绪或认知结果。进一步的研究应集中在开发更强大和可靠的程序，以在实验条件下诱导反应方式的差异。
