Wednesday, 24 June 2015

MIndfulness

Right now, mindfulness is a hot topic in psychology and beyond. In 2012, 40 new papers on mindfulness were published every month, a number that has probably risen since. Last September, the Guardian journalist Barney Ronay noted that a staggering 37 new books had been released on the topic that very week. There are numerous conferences devoted to mindfulness around the world, multiple organisations and even dedicated science journals and magazines. And yet, a dissenting voice in this chorus of enthusiasm, a new book out last month – The Buddha Pill: Can Meditation Change You? – warned that mindfulness is not harmless. To bring you up to speed in a jiffy, here we digest the psychology of mindfulness:

What is mindfulness?
With its roots in various philosophical and religious traditions, especially Buddhism, mindfulness is usually defined as paying attention in a non-judgmental way to one's experience of the here and now. Some psychologists' and practitioners' definitions are broader and speak of compassion for and curiosity about the world. The Oxford Mindfulness Centre, affiliated with the University of Oxford, states: "Mindfulness is the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, with compassion, and open-hearted curiosity." A mindful mindset can be adopted deliberately as part of a meditative exercise, but mindfulness is also considered a trait. As a trait, mindfulness is measured by agreement with questionnaire items such as "I intentionally stay aware of my feelings" and disagreement with questionnaire items like "I tend to make judgments about how worthwhile or worthless my experiences are". One popular measure, The Five-Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire measures a person's non-reactivity, their acting with awareness, tendency to be non-judgmental, to be observant, and to describe experiences.

Is mindfulness-based meditation beneficial?
Lots of research certainly suggests it can be, but there are question marks over the rigour of some studies. Case in point: a 2013 study reported that a brief mindfulness intervention increased healthy people's sense of inner peace compared with a control group. But the control group did nothing, so as the researchers acknowledge, " We cannot exactly say whether the significant positive effects in the present study were caused by the mindfulness practice or just by the non-specific support provided by a weekly group."

That said, a review from 2011 of 23 relevant studies reported that mindfulness training could have benefits for people's attentional control and working memory (although the authors warned the quality of the evidence was often poor). Another review, published the same year, of dozens of studies reported that mindfulness has a range of psychological benefits, including reduced anxiety and greater feelings of life having meaning.

A systematic review from 2013 of 8 papers found that mindfulness meditation and similar practices could be beneficial to prison inmates (for example by reducing their anger and hostility), but the authors again warned about the need for higher quality research. Increasingly, aspects of mindfulness meditation are being incorporated into forms of therapy. For instance, a meta-analysis and review from 2012 of controlled trials found that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy successfully helps prevent depression relapse

What about trait mindfulness?

There's evidence that people who are inclined to be mindful tend to have advantages over others who are not. For instance, students who are more mindful have higher self-esteem. And a study from the noughties reported that people who score higher in trait mindfulness tend be more satisfied with their romantic relationships, and respond better to relationship stress. Another paper claimed that managers who are more mindful tend to have higher-performing staff, who are more satisfied with their jobs. There is even evidence that people who are more mindful are less susceptible to the harmful effects of discrimination

How does mindfulness exert its apparent beneficial effects?

Research into this question is ongoing, but a review published in 2011 proposed four key ways: by helping people have more control over their minds, such as the ability to ignore distractions; through increased awareness of one's own body; through improved control over one's own emotions and the ability to cope with unpleasant emotions; and finally, through a changed perspective on the self. Regarding the last component, Britta Hölzel and her colleagues write that: "In place of the identification with the static self, there emerges a tendency to identify with the phenomenon of 'experiencing' itself". This fits the Buddhist teaching that there is no such thing as a permanent unchanging self. The authors go on to say that these four components are highly interrelated and are associated with various neural changes, such as enhanced grey matter in frontal brain areas involved in mental control. 

Mindfulness sounds amazing, is there any reason not to do it?

There's some evidence that mindfulness meditation can be unhelpful or even harmful for some people. A study from the early 90s reported that following a mindfulness-based meditation retreat most meditators described positive benefits, but 17 said they'd had at least one adverse effect, and two described experiencing "profound" adverse effects, such as panic attacks and loss of motivation.

A paper published in 2009 summarises instances of adverse effects documented in 12 published case studies and reviews of mindfulness meditation. The authors place these adverse effects in three categories: mental health (e.g. anxiety, depersonalisation and hallucinations), physical health (e.g. seizures, double vision); and spiritual health (e.g. religious delusions). 

So who could be at risk from these potential adverse effects? Another paper from 2012 warns that little research has been conducted into this question. The authors led by Patricia Dobkin explain why mindfulness might be risky for some vulnerable people: "Meditation, when practiced intently, leads one into deep exploration of ‘inner space.’ Long-held grief, body tension, and critical or judgmental thoughts may be met perhaps for the first time with full attention."


Writing in The Guardian, co-author of The Budha Pill Catherine Wikholm reminds us: "the fact that meditation [including mindfulness-based versions] was primarily designed not to make us happier, but to destroy our sense of individual self – who we feel and think we are most of the time – is often overlooked in the science and media stories about it, which focus almost exclusively on the benefits practitioners can expect."
_________________________________

--further reading--
A Mindful Moment – a mindfulness-themed trawl of The Psychologist and Research Digest archives.
When Therapy Causes Harm.  
   
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.

Sunday, 7 June 2015

What Causes Schizophrenia?


June 4, 2015 | by Justine Alford
Photo credit: lassedesignen/ Shutterstock
Schizophrenia affects 1% of the general population at some stage of their lives, but that figure increases to 10% in individuals who have a close relative with the disorder, such as a parent or sibling. And if you have an identical twin with this mental illness, you have up to a 65% chance of developing it yourself. Needless to say, genetics clearly plays a role in its origins, but scientists have struggled to pinpoint which genes could be responsible for the disease.
Now, after conducting the largest study of its kind, scientists believe they have gathered the most convincing evidence of the DNA alterations that make things go awry in the brain, ultimately leading to the onset of schizophrenia. As described in the journal Neuron, researchers found that a number of schizophrenia-associated gene variations can disrupt the brain’s fragile chemical balance.
The genes in question are involved in preventing neurons from firing out excessive amounts of chemical messengers after stimulation, and thus contribute to inhibitory signaling in the brain. The researchers believe that these mutations therefore allow regions of the brain to become excessively excited, which can be detrimental to cell health if not corrected.
“We’re finally starting to understand what goes wrong in schizophrenia,” lead author Dr. Andrew Pocklington said in a statement. “We now have what we hope is a pretty sizeable piece of the jigsaw puzzle that will help us develop a coherent model of the disease, while helping us to rule out some of the alternatives.”
This research, conducted at Cardiff University, actually builds on prior research by members of the same team that hinted that mutations associated with this mental illness could be interfering with so-called excitatory chemical signaling in the brain. While brain cells need to possess the ability to become excited and fire signals to one another in order to transmit information, there also needs to be a counter system to prevent them from over-firing and ultimately causing cellular damage. This delicate balance of excitatory and inhibitory signaling is therefore pivotal to proper brain functioning.
Although these earlier findings led to the publication of two landmark studies in the prestigious journal Nature, the team now has even more evidence to support the idea that disruption of excitatory signaling in the brain contributes to schizophrenia, rather than being a secondary effect of the disease.
For the investigation, researchers obtained and analyzed genetic data collected from 11,355 schizophrenic patients and 16,416 people without the disorder. More specifically, they were looking for copy number variants (CNVs) within their DNA, which are deletions or gains of large chunks of sequences that result in cells having an abnormal number of copies of certain stretches of DNA.
By comparing CNVs between the two groups, the researchers found that schizophrenic individuals tended to have variations in genes involved in the transmission of a chemical messenger called GABA, which is a major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain.
Furthermore, confirming their previous work, they also found that genes involved in the brain’s major excitatory system, mediated by the neurotransmitter glutamate, are also enriched with CNVs in people with schizophrenia. Since the GABA signaling system has strong functional links with the brain’s major excitatory system, their findings strongly indicate that a disruption of inhibitory signaling plays a role in schizophrenia. The researchers therefore conclude that faulty GABA signaling is a cause, rather than an effect, of schizophrenia. 

Friday, 6 March 2015

Visual illusions foster open mindedness



From sworn witness accounts of alien visitations, to deep-rooted trust in quack medical treatments, the human trait that psychologists call "naive realism" has a lot to answer for. This is people's instinctive feeling that they perceive the world how it is, encapsulated by the saying "seeing is believing." The truth, of course, is that our every perception is our brain's best guess, built not merely with the raw material of what's out in the world, but just as much with the bricks of expectation, hope and imagination.

William Hart and his colleagues at the University of Alabama propose that naive realism not only inspires false confidence in what we see, but also more generally in our beliefs and assumptions. Based on this logic, the researchers tested whether explaining to people about naive realism, and showing them the unconscious, fallible mental work that leads to their unstable perceptions, might have knock-on effects, making them more open-minded and more doubtful of their assumptions about a person's character.

Nearly 200 students took part and were split into four groups. One group read about naive realism (e.g. "visual illusions provide a glimpse of how our brain twists reality without our intent or awareness") and then they experienced several well-known, powerful visual illusions (e.g. the Spinning Wheels, shown above, the Checker Shadow, and the Spinning Dancer), with the effects explained to them. The other groups either: just had the explanation but no experience of the illusions; or completed a difficult verbal intelligence test; or read about chimpanzees.

Afterwards, whatever their group, all the participants read four vignettes about four different people. These were written to be deliberately ambiguous about the protagonist's personality, which could be interpreted, depending on the vignette, as either assertive or hostile; risky or adventurous; agreeable or a push over; introverted or snobbish. There was also a quiz on the concept of naive realism.

The key finding is that after reading about naive realism and experiencing visual illusions, the participants were less certain of their personality judgments and more open to the alternative interpretation, as compared with the participants in the other groups. The participants who only read about naive realism, but didn't experience the illusions, showed just as much knowledge about naive realism, but their certainty in their understanding of the vignettes wasn't dented, and they remained as closed to alternative interpretations as the participants in the other comparison conditions.

"In sum," the researchers said, "exposing naive realism in an experiential way seems necessary to fuel greater doubt and openness."

At the time of writing, the internet is abuzz with talk of a dress that looks different colours to different people, with numerous scientific explanations on offer. It's a bit like the main intervention condition in this study writ large – experience of an illusion, combined with explanation that shows the hidden work of unconscious processing. Might this internet meme foster greater openness in society?

Before we get carried away, more is research is needed to test the longevity of these effects, and how far they generalise. It's possible, for example, that people's core beliefs would not be affected in the same way. Nonetheless, the researchers are hopeful: "... the present effects may have implications for fostering a more tolerant, open-minded society," they concluded.

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Hart, W., Tullett, A., Shreves, W., & Fetterman, Z. (2015). Fueling doubt and openness: Experiencing the unconscious, constructed nature of perception induces uncertainty and openness to change Cognition, 137, 1-8 DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.003

Thursday, 12 February 2015

What do confident people say to themselves before they make a speech?

Before you speak to an audience, can you first talk yourself out of feeling nervous? One step towards this strategy is to find out how confident people speak to themselves in their heads (their internal "self-talk"), compared with others who are more anxious.

Xiaowei Shi and his colleagues surveyed nearly 200 students on a public speaking course. The researchers approached the students after they'd given two public presentations on the course and were soon to give their third. The students answered questions about how much they'd engaged in self-talk in the preceding days, and about how much anxiety they feel towards public speaking.

The women tended to be more nervous than the men. Once this gender influence had been accounted for, the students' frequency of various types of self-talk over the last few days explained 20 per cent of the difference in their anxiety levels. Specifically, the more confident students tended to say they'd engaged in less self-critical self-talk (e.g. chastising themselves about their poor preparations) and less self-talk related to social assessment (e.g. replaying ways people had reacted in the past), whereas they had engaged in more self-talk related to self-reinforcement (e.g. talking to themselves about how pleased they were with their own preparations).

In other words, the students who were more self-confident tended to be less self-focused and less self-critical in the way they spoke to themselves, and when they were self-focused, this tended to be with a positive bias.

This study assumes people are able to remember and recognise their own past self-talk, which some readers may question. Of course, it's also just as likely that anxiety triggers particular categories of self-talk, as it is that the wrong kind of self-talk fuels anxiety. Nonetheless, the researchers said their insights could help inform interventions aimed at helping people overcome fear of public speaking.

"As we know that high public-speaking-anxiety individuals engage in higher levels of self-critical and social-assessing self-talk than low anxiety individuals," Shi's team concluded, "instructors can intervene in the early phases of the speech preparation process by helping these students to attend to, recognise, and adjust the frequency and nature of their self-talk."

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Shi, X., Brinthaupt, T., & McCree, M. (2015). The relationship of self-talk frequency to communication apprehension and public speaking anxiety Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 125-129 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.023


Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.

Friday, 23 January 2015

The psychology of facebook


With over a billion users, Facebook is changing the social life of our species. Cultural commentators ponder the effects. Is it bringing us together or tearing us apart? Psychologists have responded too - Google Scholar lists more than 27,000 references with Facebook in the title. Common topics for study are links between Facebook use and personality, and whether the network alleviates or fosters loneliness. The torrent of new data is overwhelming and much of it appears contradictory. Here is the psychology of Facebook, digested:

Who uses Facebook?

Extraverts have more friends on FB
but shy people probably use it more

According to a survey of over a thousand people, "females, younger people, and those not currently in a committed relationship were the most active Facebook users". Regarding personality, a study of over 1000 Australians reported that "[FB] users tend to be more extraverted and narcissistic, but less conscientious and socially lonely, than nonusers". A study of the actual FB use of over a hundred students found that personality was a more important factor than gender and FB experience, with high scorers in neuroticism spending more time on FB. Meanwhile, extraverts were found to have more friends on the network than introverts ("the 10 per cent of our respondents scoring the highest in extraversion had, on average, 484 more friends than the 10 per cent scoring the lowest in extraversion").

Other findings add to the picture, for example: greater shyness has also been linked with more FB use. Similarly, a study from 2013 found that anxiousness (as well as alcohol and marijuana use) predicted more emotional attachment to Facebook.

There's also evidence that people use FB to connect with others with specialist interests, such as diabetes patients sharing information and experiences, and that people with autism particularly enjoy interacting via FB and other online networks.

Why do some people use Twitter and others Facebook?


High scorers in "need for cognition" prefer Twitter
Apparently most people use Facebook "to get instant communication and connection with their friends" (who knew?), but why use FB rather than Twitter? A 2014 paper suggested narcissism again is relevant, but that its influence depends on a person's age: student narcissists prefer Twitter, while more mature narcissists prefer FB. Other research has uncovered intriguing links between personality and reasons for using FB. People who said they used FB as an informational tool (rather than socialising) tended to score higher on neuroticism, sociability, extraversion and openness, but lower on conscientiousness and "need for cognition". The researchers speculated that using FB to seek and share information could be some people's way to avoid more cognitively demanding sources such as journal articles and newspaper reports. The same study also found that higher scorers in sociability, neuroticism and extraversion preferred FB, while people who scored higher in "need for cognition" preferred Twitter.

What do we give away about ourselves on Facebook?

FB seems like the perfect way to present an idealised version of yourself to the world. However an analysis of the profiles of over 200 people in Germany and the US found that they reflected their actual personalities, not their ideal selves. Consistent with this, another study found that people who are rated as more likeable in the flesh also tend to be rated as more likeable based on their Facebook page. The things you choose to "like" on FB are also revealing. Remarkably, a study out last week found that your "likes" can be analysed by a computer programme to produce a more accurate profile of your personality than the profiles produced by your friends and relatives.

If our FB profiles expose our true selves, this raises obvious privacy issues. A study in 2013 warned that employers often trawl candidates' FB pages, and that they view photos of drinking and partying as "red flags", presumably seeing them as a sign of low conscientiousness (in fact the study found photos like these were linked with high extraversion, not with low conscientiousness).

Other researchers have looked specifically at how personality is related to the kind of content people post on FB. A 2014 study reported that "higher degrees of narcissism led to deeper self-disclosures and more self-promotional content within these messages. [And] Users with higher need to belong disclosed more intimate information". Another study last year also reported that lonelier people disclose more private information, but fewer opinions.

You might also want to consider the friends you keep on FB - research suggests that their attractiveness (good-lookers give your rep a boost), and the statements they make about you on your wall, affect the way your own profile is perceived. Consider too how many friends you have - somewhat paradoxically, research finds that having an overabundance of friends leads to negative perceptions of your profile.


Finally, we heard about employers frowning on partying photos, but what else do you give away in your FB profile picture? It could reveal your cultural background according to a 2012 study that showed people from Taiwan were more likely to have a zoomed-out picture in which they were seen against a background context, while US users were more likely to have a close-up picture in which their face filled up more of the frame. Your FB pic might also say something about your current romantic relationship. When people feel more insecure about their partner's feelings, they make their relationship more visible in their pics.

In case you're wondering, yes, people who post more selfies probably are more narcissistic.

Is Facebook making us lonely and sad?

This is the crunch question that has probably attracted the most newspaper column inches (and books). A 2012 study took an experimental approach. One group were asked to post more updates than usual for one week - this led them to feel less lonely and more connected to their friends. Similarly, a survey of over a thousand FB users found links between use of the network and greater feelings of belonging and confidence in keeping up with friends, especially for people with low self-esteem. Another study from 2010 found that shy students who use FB feel closer to their friends (on FB) and have a greater sense of social support. A similar story is told by a 2013 paper that said feelings of FB connectedness were associated with "with lower depression and anxiety and greater satisfaction with life" and that Facebook "may act as a separate social medium ....  with a range of positive psychological outcomes." This recent report also suggested the site can help revive old relationships.


Yet there's also evidence for the negative influence of FB. A 2013 study texted people through the day, to see how they felt before and after using FB. "The more people used Facebook at one time point, the worse they felt the next time we text-messaged them; [and] the more they used Facebook over two-weeks, the more their life satisfaction levels declined over time," the researchers said.

Other findings are more nuanced. This study from 2010 (not specifically focused on FB) found that using the internet to connect with existing friends was associated with less loneliness, but using it to connect with strangers (i.e. people only known online) was associated with more loneliness. This survey of adults with autism found that greater use of online social networking (including FB) was associated with having more close friendships, but only offline relationships were linked with feeling less lonely.

Facebook could also be fuelling envy. In 2012 researchers found that people who'd spent more time on FB felt that other people were happier, and that life was less fair. Similarly, a study of hundreds of undergrads found that more time on FB went hand in hand with more feelings of jealousy. And a paper from last year concluded that "people feel depressed after spending a great deal of time on Facebook because they feel badly when comparing themselves to others." However, this new report (on general online social networking, not just FB) found that heavy users are not more stressed than average, but are more aware of other people's stress.

Is Facebook harming students' academic work?

This is another live issue among newspaper columnists and other social commentators. An analysis of the grades and FB use of nearly 4000 US students found that the more they used the network to socialise, the poorer their grades tended to be (of course, there could be a separate causal factor(s) underlying this association). But not all FB use is the same - the study found that using the site to collect and share information was actually associated with better grades. This survey of over 200 students also found that heavier users of FB tend to have lower academic grades, but note again that this doesn't prove a causal link. Yet another study, this one from the University of Chicago, which included more convincing longitudinal data, found no evidence for a link between FB use and poorer grades; if anything there were signs of the opposite pattern. Still more positive evidence for FB came from a recent report that suggested FB - along with other social networking tools - could have cognitive benefits for elderly people.

And finally, some miscellaneous findings


That was our digest of the psychology of Facebook - please tell all your friends, on and off Facebook! Oh, and don't forget to visit the Research Digest Facebook page.
_________________________________
   
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.

Friday, 9 January 2015

New reason why quitting smoking is so difficult

When a cigarette smoker attempts to quit, not only do they crave their usual nicotine hit, they also experience an unpleasant inability to enjoy other pleasures in life - a state known as "anhedonia".

Jessica Cook and her colleagues studied over a thousand smokers enrolled on a quitting programme in the US. The participants (mostly White, 58.3 per cent were female) were placed on a range of nicotine replacement therapies or they were given placebo. The participants also kept an evening diary from five days before, to ten days after, their quit day. Here they recorded how much pleasure they'd experienced that day across three domains: social, recreation and performance/accomplishment.

The researchers found that stopping smoking was followed by an immediate spike in anhedonia - on the day of quitting, participants in the placebo condition showed a marked reduction in their experience of pleasure from various aspects of life. This quitting-related anhedonia peaked the day after quitting and showed all the hallmarks of being part of the nicotine "withdrawal syndrome". That is, levels of anhedonia tended to be correlated with other withdrawal symptoms (such as craving and poor concentration); the anhedonia faded over time; and it was eased by the administration of a nicotine therapy, such as a nicotine lozenge or patch.

Perhaps most importantly, the results showed that levels of anhedonia were correlated (negatively) with participants' subsequent success at abstinence, even after controlling for the predictive value of craving levels and negative mood. In other words, more quitting-related anhedonia was associated with less success at quitting. Greater post-quitting anhedonia also predicted increased risk of an initial lapse transforming into a full return to smoking. It seems likely that quitting-related anhedonia prompts smokers to want to resume smoking so that they can reinstate their usual ability to enjoy other pleasures in life; and once they lapse, the return of the smoker's usual experience of pleasure acts as a powerful reinforcer.

"The present study is the first, to our knowledge, to demonstrate that post-cessation pleasure in response to daily activities is a significant barrier to quitting smoking," the researchers said. They added that this could point to important new treatment strategies aimed at helping smokers get through their initial experience of anhedonia (such as "behavioural activation"), especially smokers with other mental health issues, who may use smoking to self-treat their chronic anhedonia.

The study makes a useful contribution to the field, but it does suffer some limitations, as the researchers acknowledged. This includes the reliance on the participants' rather vague reports of their daily enjoyment of activities, as well as the fact the sample was enrolled on a treatment programme and highly motivated to quit - it remains to be seen how well the findings will generalise.
_________________________________

  ResearchBlogging.orgCook, J., Piper, M., Leventhal, A., Schlam, T., Fiore, M., & Baker, T. (2014). Anhedonia as a Component of the Tobacco Withdrawal Syndrome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology DOI: 10.1037/abn0000016

Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.

Is being a worrier a sign of intelligence?

We usually see worry as a bad thing. It feels unpleasant, like a snake coiling in the pit of your stomach. And worriers are often considered weak links in a team - negative influences who lack confidence. But of course, anxiety has a useful function. It's about anticipating and preparing for threats, and learning from past mistakes.

Increasingly psychologists are recognising the strengths of anxious people. For example, there's research showing that people more prone to anxiety are quicker to detect threats and better at lie detection. Now Alexander Penney and his colleagues have conducted a survey of over 100 students and they report that a tendency to worry goes hand in hand with higher intelligence.

The researchers asked the students to complete measures of worry, anxiety, depression, rumination, social phobia, dwelling on past social events, mood, verbal intelligence, non-verbal intelligence, and test anxiety. This last measure was important because the researchers wanted to distinguish trait anxiety from in-the-moment state anxiety and how each relates to intelligence.

The key finding was that after controlling for the influence of test anxiety and current mood, the students who reported a general habit of worrying more (e.g. they agreed with survey statements like "I am always worrying about something") and/or ruminating more (e.g. they said they tended to think about their sadness, or think "what am doing to deserve this?") also tended to score higher on the test of verbal intelligence, which was taken from the well-known Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

To take one specific statistical example, verbal intelligence correlated positively with worry proneness with a statistically significant value of 0.19 (after controlling for test anxiety and mood). Together with the measures of rumination, mood and test anxiety, verbal intelligence explained an estimated 46 per cent of the variance in worry.

Another result from the survey, not so promising for worriers, was that a tendency to dwell on past social events was negatively correlated with non-verbal intelligence (that is, those students who dwelt more on past events scored lower on non-verbal IQ).

Seeking to explain these two different and seemingly contradictory correlations, the researchers surmised that: "more verbally intelligent individuals are able to consider past and future events in greater detail, leading to more intense rumination and worry. Individuals with high non-verbal intelligence may be stronger at processing the non-verbal signals they interact with in the moment, leading to a decreased need to re-process past social encounters."

Of course we must be careful not to over-interpret these preliminary results - it was a small, non-clinical sample after all, so it's not clear how the findings would generalise to people with more extreme anxiety. However it's notable that a small 2012 study found a correlation between worry and intelligence in a sample diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder. Penney and his colleagues concluded that: "a worrying and ruminating mind is a more verbally intelligent mind; a socially ruminative mind, however, might be less able to process non-verbal information."

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Penney, A., Miedema, V., & Mazmanian, D. (2015). Intelligence and emotional disorders: Is the worrying and ruminating mind a more intelligent mind? Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 90-93 DOI