Response inhibition and cognitive appraisal in clients with acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Abass Abolghasemi, Fereshteh Bakhshian, Mohammad Narimani
Author Information
  1. Abass Abolghasemi: Department of Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Mohaghegh Ardebili, Ardabil, Iran.
  2. Fereshteh Bakhshian: Department of Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Mohaghegh Ardebili, Ardabil, Iran.
  3. Mohammad Narimani: Department of Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili University of Mohaghegh Ardebili, Ardabil, Iran.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to compare response inhibition and cognitive appraisal in clients with acute stress disorder, clients with posttraumatic stress disorder, and normal individuals.
METHOD: This was a comparative study. The sample consisted of 40 clients with acute stress disorder, 40 patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, and 40 normal individuals from Mazandaran province selected through convenience sampling method. Data were collected using Composite International Diagnostic Interview, Stroop Color-Word Test, Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory, and the Impact of Event Scale.
RESULTS: Results showed that individuals with acute stress disorder are less able to inhibit inappropriate responses and have more impaired cognitive appraisals compared to those with posttraumatic stress disorder. Moreover, results showed that response inhibition and cognitive appraisal explain 75% of the variance in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and 38% of the variance in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that response inhibition and cognitive appraisal are two variables that influence the severity of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder symptoms. Also, these results have important implications for pathology, prevention, and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder.

Keywords

References

  1. Behav Res Ther. 2008 Jan;46(1):62-70 [PMID: 18005937]
  2. Behav Res Ther. 2008 Jun;46(6):689-700 [PMID: 18456243]
  3. Neurosci Lett. 2010 Dec 17;486(3):117-21 [PMID: 20655367]
  4. Psychiatry Res. 2013 Jan 30;205(1-2):79-84 [PMID: 22910478]
  5. Brain. 2006 Sep;129(Pt 9):2484-93 [PMID: 16835247]
  6. J Anxiety Disord. 2009 Aug;23(6):775-81 [PMID: 19369030]
  7. J Anxiety Disord. 2009 Oct;23(7):979-85 [PMID: 19604667]
  8. J Abnorm Psychol. 2004 May;113(2):315-323 [PMID: 15122951]
  9. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(1):76-85 [PMID: 11595263]
  10. Behav Res Ther. 2000 Apr;38(4):319-45 [PMID: 10761279]
  11. Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Apr 1;65(7):548-9 [PMID: 19281881]
  12. Behav Res Ther. 2006 Jul;44(7):1053-65 [PMID: 16169513]
  13. Biol Psychol. 2008 Oct;79(2):223-33 [PMID: 18590795]
  14. Int J Psychophysiol. 2008 Jan;67(1):23-34 [PMID: 17967496]
  15. J Anxiety Disord. 2010 Dec;24(8):953-7 [PMID: 20655170]
  16. Behav Res Ther. 2001 Sep;39(9):1063-84 [PMID: 11520012]
  17. Can J Psychiatry. 2006 Jun;51(7):407-16 [PMID: 16838822]
  18. J Trauma Stress. 1998 Apr;11(2):281-300 [PMID: 9565916]
  19. Behav Res Ther. 2003 Jan;41(1):1-10 [PMID: 12488116]
  20. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1999 Jul;23(5):809-22 [PMID: 10509376]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stressdisorderposttraumaticacuteinhibitioncognitiveappraisalresponseclientsindividuals40symptomsstudynormalshowedresultsvarianceOBJECTIVE:purposepresentcompareMETHOD:comparativesampleconsistedpatientsMazandaranprovinceselectedconveniencesamplingmethodDatacollectedusingCompositeInternationalDiagnosticInterviewStroopColor-WordTestPosttraumaticCognitionsInventoryImpactEventScaleRESULTS:ResultslessableinhibitinappropriateresponsesimpairedappraisalscomparedMoreoverexplain75%38%CONCLUSION:findingssuggesttwovariablesinfluenceseverityAlsoimportantimplicationspathologypreventiontreatmentResponseCognitive

Similar Articles

Cited By