Worrying about the future: An episodic specificity induction impacts problem solving, reappraisal, and well-being

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that an episodic specificity induction--brief training in recollecting details of a recent experience--enhances performance on various subsequent tasks thought to draw upon episodic memory processes. Existing work has also shown that mental simulation can be beneficial for emotion regulation and coping with stressors. Here we focus on understanding how episodic detail can affect problem solving, reappraisal, and psychological well-being regarding worrisome future events. In Experiment 1, an episodic specificity induction significantly improved participants' performance on a subsequent means-end problem solving task (i.e., more relevant steps) and an episodic reappraisal task (i.e., more episodic details) involving personally worrisome future events compared with a control induction not focused on episodic specificity. Imagining constructive behaviors with increased episodic detail via the specificity induction was also related to significantly larger decreases in anxiety, perceived likelihood of a bad outcome, and perceived difficulty to cope with a bad outcome, as well as larger increases in perceived likelihood of a good outcome and indicated use of active coping behaviors compared with the control. In Experiment 2, we extended these findings using a more stringent control induction, and found preliminary evidence that the specificity induction was related to an increase in positive affect and decrease in negative affect compared with the control. Our findings support the idea that episodic memory processes are involved in means-end problem solving and episodic reappraisal, and that increasing the episodic specificity of imagining constructive behaviors regarding worrisome events may be related to improved psychological well-being.

Figure 1

Schema of experimental design. The order of tasks (MEPS, episodic reappraisal) and inductions (specificity, control) was counterbalanced across participants.

Figure 2

Experiment 1 mean induction effects on steps and details in control and specificity conditions: (A) Relevant and other steps in means-end problem solving (MEPS) task; (B) Internal and external details in MEPS task; and (C) Internal and external details in episodic reappraisal task. The y-axis represents the mean number of steps or details per trial, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 3

Experiment 1 mean initial and post-simulation ratings in the control and specificity conditions in the MEPS task of: (A) Anxiety; (B) Perceived likelihood of a bad outcome; and (C) Perceived likelihood of a good outcome. All ratings were made on a 1 to 9 scale. The y-axis represents the mean rating per trial, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 4

Experiment 1 mean initial and post-simulation ratings in the control and specificity conditions in the episodic reappraisal task of: (A) Anxiety; (B) Perceived likelihood of a bad outcome; and (C) Perceived difficulty to cope with a bad outcome. All ratings were made on a 1 to 9 scale. The y-axis represents the mean rating per trial, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 5

Experiment 1 mean engagement coping composite score from COPE Inventory scale items in the initial session (session 1), control and specificity sessions (sessions 2 and 3). The minimum composite score is 20 and the maximum composite score is 80. The y-axis represents the mean total score across questions, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 6

Experiment 2 mean induction effects on steps and details in control and specificity conditions: (A) Relevant and other steps in means-end problem solving (MEPS) task; (B) Internal and external details in MEPS task; and (C) Internal and external details in episodic reappraisal task. The y-axis represents the mean number of steps or details per trial, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 7

Experiment 2 mean initial and post-simulation ratings in the control and specificity conditions in the MEPS task of: (A) Anxiety; (B) Perceived likelihood of a bad outcome; and (C) Perceived likelihood of a good outcome. The y-axis represents the mean rating per trial, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 8

Experiment 2 mean initial and post-simulation ratings in the control and specificity conditions in the episodic reappraisal task of: (A) Anxiety; (B) Perceived likelihood of a bad outcome; and (C) Perceived difficulty to cope with a bad outcome. The y-axis represents the mean rating per trial, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 9

Experiment 2 mean PANAS composite scores for (A) positive affect and (B) negative affect in the initial session (session 1), control and specificity sessions (sessions 2 and 3). The minimum composite score is 10 and the maximum composite score is 50 for both positive and negative affect. The y-axis represents the mean total score across scale items, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.

Figure 10

Experiment 2 mean engagement coping composite score from COPE Inventory scale items in the initial session (session 1), control and specificity sessions (sessions 2 and 3). The minimum composite score is 20 and the maximum composite score is 80. The y-axis represents the mean total score across questions, and error bars represent one standard error of the mean.