Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Anxiety Disord. 2021 Aug 5;83:102457. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102457

Associations between self-absorption and working memory capacity: A preliminary examination of a transdiagnostic process spanning across emotional disorders

Thomas A Fergus 1, Saira A Weinzimmer 2, Sophie C Schneider 3, Eric A Storch 4
PMCID: PMC8440467  NIHMSID: NIHMS1731732  PMID: 34380084

Abstract

Considered a transdiagnostic process spanning across emotional disorders, self-absorption reflects self-focused processing that is excessive, sustained, and inflexible. Working memory capacity is critical for self-regulation, inclusive of mitigating perseverative thinking. Providing the first known examination of associations between self-absorption and working memory capacity, a negative association was expected. A sample of adults (N = 63; 70% experiencing an anxiety or depressive disorder) completed the study protocol, which included completing a structured diagnostic interview, self-report measures, and a working memory capacity task. Self-absorption, as predicted, negatively correlated with working memory capacity, with an association found for the private, but not public, aspect of self-absorption. The association between private self-absorption and working memory capacity was not attributable to shared variance with public self-absorption or negative affectivity. Diagnostic status (anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, or either disorder) did not moderate the association. The results provide evidence that self-absorption relates to impairments in working memory capacity. Implications and future directions for how these results advance our understanding and treatment efforts of self-absorption are discussed.

Keywords: emotional disorders, self-absorption, self-focused attention, working memory

1. Introduction

There is growing interest in examining transdiagnostic processes that span psychological disorders versus examining putatively disorder-specific processes (Harvey et al., 2004; Hayes & Hofmann, 2018). One construct, self-focused attention, is of particular interest given its relevance in the theoretical understanding of a range of psychological conditions. Self-focused attention refers to awareness of self-relevant information that is internally generated (e.g., bodily sensations, thoughts; Ingram, 1990). A normative process, self-focused attention putatively becomes nonadaptive when it is excessive, of a sustained duration, and inflexible. Ingram termed nonadaptive self-focused attention as self-absorption. Researchers consider self-absorption to be a transdiagnostic process underlying emotional disorders, inclusive of anxiety and depressive disorders (Harvey et al., 2004; Hayes & Hofmann, 2018; Ingram, 1990).

The self-regulatory executive function (S-REF) model (Wells, 2019; Wells & Matthews, 1994) posits that emotional disorders are the result of self-absorption in the form of the cognitive attentional syndrome (CAS). The type of self-focused processing underlying the CAS meets Ingram’s (1990) defining properties for self-absorption (i.e., self-focused processing that is excessive, sustained, and inflexible). According to the S-REF model, cardinal repetitive forms of thinking marking the CAS (i.e., rumination and worry) keep individuals locked into focusing on threat and self-discrepancies. Individuals engage in such types of self-absorption because of beliefs held about thinking (i.e., metacognitive beliefs). The continual focus on themes of threat and self-discrepancies through self-absorption leads one to experience sustained emotional distress, while contributing to the maintenance of threat perceptions and reinforcing beliefs about the presence of danger. Avoidance behaviors are often used to mitigate one’s sense of threat or danger that originates from the CAS; however, those behaviors preclude corrective experiences surrounding negative self-relevant information. As a result, metacognitive beliefs supporting the CAS remain unchallenged, the CAS continues to be used as the dominant style of information-processing, and an individual continues to experience heightened negative affectivity (Wells, 2009). Consistent with the importance of self-absorption within the S-REF model, meta-analytic studies indicate positive associations between self-focused attention with anxiety and depressive symptom severity (Mor & Winquist, 2002; Woodruff-Borden et al., 2001). Moreover, specific types of self-absorption (e.g., rumination, worry) serve as potential vulnerability for anxiety and depressive symptom severity (e.g., Michl et al., 2013; Spinhoven et al., 2018; Topper et al., 2014). Self-focused attention appears to change with therapeutic responses and may relate to therapeutic symptom improvement as well (e.g., social anxiety; Gregory & Peters, 2017).

One limitation in extant research examining self-absorption relates to assessment (McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008). More precisely, the bulk of the literature has used measures of self-awareness that do not incorporate Ingram’s (1990) defining properties of self-absorption or have focused on narrow types of self-absorption (e.g., rumination, worry). McKenzie and Hoyle noted that self-awareness is not synonymous with self-absorption. Moreover, narrow types of self-absorption do not always concern the self and individuals may engage in self-absorption without, for example, ruminating. McKenzie and Hoyle developed the Self-Absorption Scale (SAS) to address those noted gaps. The SAS separately assesses private and public aspects of self-absorption, with private aspects relating to self-relevant goals and public aspects related to needs or views of others. That distinction is important because private and public aspects evidence differential associations with negative affectivity (Mor & Winquist, 2002). The resulting SAS subscales (private, public) evidenced incremental validity beyond measures of self-awareness in accounting for variance in anxiety and depressive symptom severity; however, the measures of self-awareness rarely showed incremental validity beyond the SAS subscales. Moreover, the SAS subscales evidenced moderate relations (rs of .36, .41) with a measure of rumination, suggesting the measures assess distinct content (McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008). Despite its potential usefulness, the SAS has not been widely used and, thus, less continues to be known about self-absorption versus self-awareness or narrow types of self-absorption.

As noted, along with the frequency in which one engages in the type of processing, critical to the deleterious effects of self-absorption is that individuals remain engaged in such processing in a sustained and inflexible manner (e.g., Ingram, 1990). Theorizing about the functions of working memory, as well as extant data examining rumination and worry, raise the possibility that working memory capacity may be important for understanding those aspects of self-absorption. A cardinal function of working memory capacity relates to attentional control (Engle, 2001), such that an individual is able to keep goal-relevant information retrievable when there are distractors. That function of working memory capacity is essential for self-regulatory abilities. For example, working memory capacity supports the mitigation of perseverative thinking and unwanted affect in the service of regulating attention toward goal-relevant information (Hofmann et al., 2012). Existing theorizing suggests diminished working memory capacity leads to difficulties disengaging from perseverative processing, such as rumination and worry, thereby exacerbating that type of processing and negative affectivity (Hirsch & Mathews, 2012; Joormann et al., 2007). Consistent with that possibility, extant studies suggest negative associations between working memory capacity with narrow types of self-absorption, in the form of rumination (e.g., Joormann et al., 2011) and worry (e.g., Bredemeier & Berenbaum, 2013), and anxiety symptom severity (Moran, 2016). Meta-analytic findings suggest difficulties discarding task irrelevant material from working memory are particularly important to rumination and worry (Zetsche et al., 2018). Overall, these lines of literature raise the possibility that diminished working memory capacity underlies recurrent and difficult to control forms of self-absorption. Extrapolating from those published studies, the broad engagement in self-absorption may similarly relate to diminished working memory capacity.

Rather than focusing on narrow types of self-absorption in the form of rumination and worry that has been customary in the extant literature, the present study provided the first known examination of associations between the superordinate construct of self-absorption and working memory capacity in adults with and without diagnosed emotional disorders. The focus on self-absorption has the potential to be informative because individuals do not appear to exclusively engage in one narrow type of self-absorption (McLaughlin et al., 2007). Moreover, narrow types of self-absorption are representative of a general tendency to engage in self-absorption processing (McEvoy et al., 2010) and treatment efforts for emotional disorders may be best suited by mitigating that broad tendency toward self-absorption (Wells, 2009). Following from negative associations between narrow types of self-absorption and working memory capacity (e.g., Bredemeier & Berenbaum, 2013; Joormann et al., 2011; Zetsche et al., 2018), it was predicted that self-absorption would negatively correlate with working memory capacity. More precisely, it was predicted that private self-absorption would negatively correlate with working memory capacity because that aspect parallels the reviewed narrow types of self-absorption previously found to relate to working memory capacity (e.g., rumination; Trapnell & Campbell, 1999) more so than public self-absorption. Subsequent analyses examined if public self-absorption relates to working memory capacity, although no study predictions were made regarding those analyses. Negative affectivity was examined given associations between self-absorption and working memory capacity could be a byproduct of shared variance with negative affectivity (e.g., Moran, 2016; Zetsche et al., 2018). Subsequent analyses further examined if diagnostic status moderated the relation between self-absorption and working memory capacity, as diagnostic status is a potential moderator of interest in relation to self-focused processing (Mor & Winquist, 2002). Expected study findings would provide preliminary indication of impairments in working memory capacity being linked to self-absorption, which may further our understanding of self-absorption and related treatment efforts.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Self-absorption exists along a continuum (Ingram, 1990) and we recruited participants in a manner to reduce the likelihood of a range restriction, which attenuates associations (Cohen et al., 2003). Although the focus was on individuals experiencing an emotional disorder (i.e., anxiety or depressive disorder), we augmented the sample by including participants even if they were not experiencing such a disorder. Recruiting participants with and without a current emotional disorder was expected to increase the likelihood of having self-absorption scores that were normally distributed in this study.

A power analysis (Faul et al., 2009) was used to determine the sample size, with Moran’s (2016) meta-analytic estimate of the association between worry and working memory capacity of −.446 used in the power analysis. The power analysis indicated that a sample of 37 was needed to achieve adequate statistical power (i.e., .80) to examine bivariate relations. A total sample of 98 participants completed an initial session and 27 of those participants chose not to schedule or attend the second study session. As a result, 71 participated in the full study protocol. Participants were recruited from the campuses and local counties where the two institutions affiliated with the first and last authors were located, with 40 participants recruited from the lead author’s affiliated institution and 31 participants recruited from the last author’s affiliated institution.

As described more fully below, the analyzed sample consisted of 63 participants of the 71 who participated in the full study protocol. The analyzed sample of 63 participants had a mean age of 23 years (SD = 7.5) and predominantly self-identified as female (81%). The majority self-identified as White (65%), with 19% self-identifying as Asian, 10% as African American or Black, and 6% as multiracial. Approximately 27% self-identified as Latino. A majority of the participants (n = 44, 70% of sample) currently experienced an emotional disorder based upon a diagnostic interview. Primary emotional disorder diagnoses were: generalized anxiety disorder (n = 14), social anxiety disorder (n = 12), major depressive disorder (n = 10), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 2), panic disorder (n = 1), persistent depressive disorder (n = 1), and posttraumatic stress disorder (n = 4). Among participants experiencing an emotional disorder, approximately 77% had at least one comorbid diagnosis. Generalized anxiety disorder (n = 15), social anxiety disorder (n = 12), and major depressive disorder (n = 10) were the most common comorbid diagnoses. Three of the participants with an emotional disorder had a co-occurring substance use disorder, with each case being a mild alcohol use disorder.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Self-Absorption Scale (SAS; McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008).

The SAS is a 17-item self-report measure that assesses self-focused attention that is excessive, of a sustained duration, and inflexible. The SAS consists of eight items that assess private aspects of self-absorption (e.g., When I try to think of something other than myself, I cannot) and nine items that assess public aspects of self-absorption (e.g., I find myself wondering what others think of me even when I don’t want to) rated on a 5-point scale anchored by “not at all like me” and “very much like me.” McKenzie and Hoyle found that the resulting subscale scores evidenced good internal consistency (private: Cronbach’s α = .81; public: α = .89). The subscale scores evidence convergent validity via moderate correlations (private: r = .37; public: r = .54) with a measure assessing the parallel aspects of more normative self-awareness (McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008). The SAS subscales showed good internal consistency in this study (McDonald’s omega [ω], calculated using Hayes & Coutts’s, 2020, OMEGA macro; private = .82, public = .92).

2.2.2. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The PID-5-BF is a 25-item measure that assesses for five personality dimensions, inclusive of negative affect. The negative affect scale consists of five items (e.g., I worry about almost everything) rated on a 4-point scale anchored by “very false or often false” and “very true or often true.” The negative affect scale evidences adequate internal consistency (α = .70) and shares a strong correlation (r = .60) with another measure of negative affect (Anderson, Sellbom, & Salekin, 2018). The negative affect scale showed adequate internal consistency in this study (ω = .76).

2.2.3. NetSCID-5 (Brodey et al., 2016).

The NetSCID-5 is an automated version of the most recent version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID-5; Williams, First, Karg, & Spitzer, 2015), a gold-standard structured diagnostic interview for psychological disorders. The NetSCID-5 reduces data-entry, administration errors, and diagnostic errors associated with SCID-5 administration (Brodey et al., 2016). The research version of the NetSCID-5 was administered in this study, which included modules assessing anxiety disorders, mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and substance use disorders.

2.2.4. Automated Operation Span Task (Aospan; Unsworth et al., 2005).

Because extant data most strongly support the relation between negative affectivity and domain-general (versus domain-specific, e.g., phonological storage) working memory capacity (Moran, 2016), a domain-general working memory capacity task was used in this study in the form of the Aospan. The Aospan is an automated version of a widely used working memory capacity task (i.e., Operation Span Task; Turner & Engle, 1989). For the Aospan, participants are presented with visual sequences of letters ranging from three to seven letters. The sequences need to be recalled at the end of a trial. Participants complete three sets of each set size, resulting in a total of 75 letters and 75 math problems. Each letter in the sequence is preceded by a math problem (e.g., “(8*2) − 8 = ?”). Participants are instructed to solve the operation as quickly as possible and then click the mouse to advance to the next screen. On the next screen, participants are presented by a proposed solution (e.g., “9”) and are asked to click either a “true” or “false” box, depending on the answer. A letter then appears for 800ms. For recall, participants are asked to recall the correct letters from the respective set by selecting them in the correct order on the computer screen. An Aospan score is calculated using the sum of all perfectly recalled sets (Unsworth et al., 2005).

2.4. Procedure

Recruitment flyers stated interest in examining the association between attention and anxiety, while specifically asking for participants experiencing anxiety, fear, or worry. Individuals responding to recruitment materials attended an individual, in-person session. At the beginning of the session, participants provided written informed consent. The SAS and PID-5 were completed individually on a computer, whereas the NetSCID-5 was completed with a single trained research assistant who was under the supervision of a doctoral clinical psychologist. Upon completion of those tasks, participants were debriefed and compensated $30 USD. Participants were invited to complete the second study session the same day or at a later scheduled date, to minimize the potential for fatigue, with the overwhelming number of participants (all but four participants, 96% of initial sample) scheduling for a later date. Of those participants, 71 of them completed the full study protocol by attending the second session. Participation from the 63 analyzed participants at the second session varied based upon availability between the same day and four weeks after the first session (M = 12 days, SD = 12 days). The length of time (in days) between the first and second study session did not correlate with working memory capacity (r = −.10, p = .441), negative affectivity (r = .21, p = .096), or private self-absorption (r = .08, p = .531). However, length of time between the study sessions positively correlated with public self-absorption (r = .31, p = .013), which may suggest a potential association with social evaluative concerns (e.g., I find myself wondering what others think of me even when I don’t want to; McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008). Time between study sessions was retained as a covariate for multivariate analyses. Upon completion of those tasks, participants were debriefed and compensated $50 USD.

2.5. Data Analytic Strategy

Preliminary analyses examined the frequency of errors on the Aospan and cases with fewer than 85% of usable trails on the Aospan were removed from analyses (Conway et al., 2005). Skew and kurtosis values for each study variable were examined for normality of study variable scores, with those values ideally less than |1| in magnitude (Field, 2009). Zero-order correlations were used to examine raw correlations. Partial correlations were examined if the zero-order correlations with working memory capacity were attributable to shared variance with the other study variables. Finally, moderated regression, using Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS macro, examined if diagnostic status moderated the relation between self-absorption and working memory capacity. Those analyses were informed by prior research interested in if self-focused processing differentially related to anxiety and depressive disorders (Mor & Winquist, 2002). For those analyses, three diagnostic status categories were examined as potential moderators (sample sizes presented are for the analyzed data; see “Preliminary Analyses” section): (a) emotional disorder (n = 44) verus no emotional disorder (n = 19); (b) depressive disorder (n = 21) versus no depressive disorder (n = 42); and (c) anxiety disorder (n = 42) versus no anxiety disorder (n = 21). The diagnostic status variable was dummy-coded (0 = absence, 1 = presence) for the analyses and three separate regression models were run with 1,000 bootstrapped samples. Main effects were entered into Block 1 of the regression model and the interactive effect between the self-absorption and diangostic status was entered into Block 2. A 95% confidence interval (CI) not containing zero is indicative of a significant effect (Hayes, 2018). Each model was identical (examining relation between self-absorption and working memory capacity) with the exception of the moderator in the analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

The eight participants with fewer than 85% usable Aospan trials, because of speed or mathematics errors, were removed from subsquent analyses (Conway et al., 2005), which left 63 participants for analyses and 44 (70%) of those participants had an emotional disorder diagnosis. Those 63 participants had no missing values on any study variable. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1, with skew and kurtosis values for each variable suggesting that each study variable score was normally distributed in the sample.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations among Self-Absorption, Negative Affectivity, and Working Memory Capacity

Variable Mean SD Skew Kurtosis 1 2 3 4
1. Self- Absorption-Private 17.10 5.49 0.64 −0.12 -
2. Self-Absorption-Public 27.21 9.24 −0.15 −0.80 .55** -
3. Negative Affectivity 14.00 7.18 −0.23 −0.68 .57** .72** -
4. Working Memory Capacity 45.05 15.97 −0.46 −0.15 −.34** −.12** −.22 -
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 63.

**

p < .01.

Self-Absorption assessed using the Self-Absorption Scale; Negative Affectivity assessed using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form; Working Memory Capacity assessed using Automated Operation Span Task.

3.2. Associations with Working Memory Capacity

Zero-order correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. As shown, and as predicted, private self-absorption negatively correlated with working memory capacity. The effect size was small in magnitude. Neither public self-absorption nor negative affectivity correlated with working memory capacity. A partial correlation analysis revealed that private self-absorption continued to be negatively associated with working memory capacity (partial r = −.30, p = .022) when statistically controlling for time between study sessions, public self-absorption, and negative affectivity.

3.3. Moderating Effect of Diagnostic Status

Three separate regression models examined the moderating effect of diagnostic status on the relation between private self-absorption and working memory capacity via examining the interaction between private self-absorption and diagnostic status variable. Emotional disorder (ΔR2 = < .01, b = −0.48, p = .667, 95% CI for b = −2.68, 1.72), depressive disorder (ΔR2 = < .01, b = −0.37, p = .639, 95% CI for b = −1.91, 1.18), and anxiety disorder (ΔR2 = < .01, b = −0.51, p = .626, 95% CI for b = −2.61, 1.58) diagnostic status did not emerge as moderating variables, as indicated by a non-significant interactive effect between private self-absorption and diagnostic status variable. As such, the strength of relation between private self-absorption and working memory capacity did not depend upon the clinical severity of specific types of symptomatology.

4. Discussion

This study provided the first known examination of associations between self-absorption and working memory capacity. Prior research has found associations between narrow types of self-absorption and working memory capacity in the form of rumination and worry (e.g., Bredemeier & Berenbaum, 2013; Joormann et al., 2011). However, individuals rarely exclusively only ruminate or worry (McLaughlin et al., 2007) and those narrow types of self-absorption represent a general tendency to engage in self-absorption processing (McEvoy et al., 2010). Considered a core transdiagnostic process that spans across emotional disorders (Harvey et al., 2004; Hayes & Hofmann, 2018; Ingram, 1990; Wells, 2019), little continues to be known about the broad tendency to engage in self-absorption processing because existing measures focus on self-awareness or narrow types of self-absorption (McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008). Using McKenzie and Hoyle’s measure of self-absorption, as predicted, we found a negative association between self-absorption and working memory capacity. More precisely, the tendency to engage in private self-absorption correlated with diminished working memory capacity. That association was not attributable to shared variance with public self-absorption or negative affectivity nor was it moderated by diagnostic status.

A normative process, self-focused attention becomes nonadaptive when it is excessive, of a sustained duration, and inflexible (Ingram, 1990). The present results raise the possibility that working memory capacity may contribute to those defining qualities of self-absorption. Among those qualities, the flexibility quality is particularly important to consider because “…chronic self-focused attention per se is not dysfunctional; an inability to shift out of this state in response to situational demands is” (Ingram, 1990, p. 170). Following from attentional control perspectives (Engle, 2001), Hofmann et al. (2012) noted that working memory capacity underlies self-regulation. For example, reduced working memory capacity may contribute to an individual having greater difficulty redirecting attention away from goal-irrelevant information, including task-irrelevant thoughts and negative affect (Zetsche et al., 2018).

Goal-irrelevant information increases in saliency and has a stronger impact on subsequent behavioral responses as goal-relevant information becomes crowded out. Automatic cognitive and affective reactions may consequently have a particularly strong influence on behavior (Hofmann et al., 2012). Applied to self-absorption, difficulties redirecting attention that come from reduced working memory capacity could result in sustained episodes of self-focused processing, such that the individual attends to potential solutions to the self-focused processing, associated threat perceptions, and, ultimately, has difficulty engaging in goal-directed thinking or action (Hirsch & Mathews, 2012; Joormann et al., 2007). Such processing may become more habitual with time, thereby contributing to frequent engagement in sustained and inflexible self-focused attention (Wells, 2009). As such, self-absorption may be an important target for intervention (Harvey et al. 2004; Hayes & Hofmann, 2018).

Public self-absorption and negative affectivity shared no association with working memory capacity in this study. One tenable explanation for the divergent findings is that the modest sample size in this study may not have been large enough to detect small associations Consistent with this possibility, the correlation of −.22 between negative affect and working memory capacity falls on the lower end of the 95% confidence interval (−.20 to −.48) Moran (2016) found between anxiety and working memory capacity on complex working memory tasks, such as the Ospan, used in this study. Another tenable explanation for the lack of association between public self-absorption and working memory capacity relates to sample composition. Prior research indicates that public self-absorption may be of particular relevance to social anxiety (Gregory & Peters, 2017; Mor & Winquist, 2002). Related to that possibility, there was a large correlation between public self-absorption and negative affectivity in the present study. That magnitude of correlation suggests public self-absorption is broadly relevant to negative emotional states. Nonetheless, it remains possible a different pattern of results would emerge when examining self-absorption and working memory capacity only among individuals experiencing clinically severe social anxiety. A post-hoc moderated regression analysis treating social anxiety diagnostic status as a moderator did not support moderation, although the analyzed social anxiety group was small (n = 24). Future research is needed to clarify whether the aspects of self-absorption in fact differentially relate to working memory capacity.

Diagnostic status did not moderate the relation between private self-absorption and working memory capacity. Whereas Mor and Winquist (2002) found that self-focused processing was related to criterion variables across individuals irrespective of diagnostic status, they found, at times, the relation was strengthened when considering diagnostic status (e.g., self-focused processing was more strongly related to negative affectivity among individuals experiencing versus not experiencing a diagnosis). The present results suggest that diagnostic status does not strengthen (or weaken) the relation between self-absorption and working memory capacity. The sample sizes in the subgroups for those analyses were small and there was overlap among the subgroups (e.g., individuals experiencing an emotional disorder were represented in the depressive and anxiety disorder subgroups too). As such, caution is warranted when considering those specific findings. Future research is needed to further examine if diagnostic status impacts the relation between private self-absorption and working memory capacity, although these results suggest that the relation is not only seen in the context of certain clinically severe symptoms.

When considering how to mitigate self-absorption, the present results add support to existing perspectives that there may be benefit from improving working memory capacity. For example, Siegle et al. (2007) suggested that interventions that seek to use working memory capacity tasks may be useful in interrupting a narrow type of self-absorption (in the form of rumination) via strengthening neurobiological underpinnings of attentional control. Whereas standalone working memory capacity training does not seem to exert an impact on narrow types of self-absorption (i.e., rumination and worry, Grol et al., 2018; Onraedt & Koster, 2014; Wanmaker et al., 2015), it is possible that training combined with another active intervention related to attentional control may be beneficial. For example, Siegle et al. (2007) used a working memory capacity task in addition to Wells’s (1990) attention training technique (ATT) when seeking to reduce rumination. Moreover, although it remains to be examined, it is possible that treatment packages that seek to reduce self-absorption, such as metacognitive therapy (MCT; Wells, 2009), may exert therapeutic benefit by improving working memory capacity. A critical aim of MCT is for individuals to control their focus of attention more effectively in the service of disengaging from self-absorption. Following from attentional control perspectives of working memory capacity (Engle, 2001), working memory capacity could potentially underlie such improved control. Moreover, Wells (2009) points to multiple intervention strategies within MCT, inclusive of ATT, that may have a beneficial effect on working memory capacity. Future research may seek to examine whether MCT intervention strategies reduce self-absorption, at least in part, through improved working memory capacity.

The study results should be interpreted with study limitations in mind. Study results were largely interpreted within the context of existing conceptual models suggesting working memory capacity exerts an effect on self-absorption (Hirsch & Mathews, 2012; Joormann et al., 2007). However, the study methodology is unable to determine the direction of the relation between self-absorption and working memory capacity. In fact, preliminary evidence suggests a bidirectional relationship between the two variables (e.g., Sari et al., 2017; Trezise & Reeve, 2016). Future longitudinal and experimental research will help further clarify the nature of the relationship between self-absorption and working memory capacity. Although study predictions were based upon existing conceptual models and published data, the study was not pre-registered. The use of pre-registration would have supported study predictions as confirmatory rather than exploratory.

State negative affect was not assessed at the second study session and it is possible that individual difference variable impacted working memory capacity performance (Eysenck et al., 2007). Future research should seek to account for a potential role of state negative affect, including seeking to manipulate that variable. For example, prior research has used a pre-working memory task mood induction (e.g., Sari et al., 2017), which may be a particularly useful method for examining if self-absorption causally influences working memory capacity. The current study is limited by using a single task to assess working memory capacity. Despite being a widely used task (e.g., Conway et al., 2005), it is possible that idiosyncrasies of the Ospan influenced study findings. Future research would benefit from using multiple tasks to assess working memory capacity (e.g., Engle et al., 1999).

Participants completed the working memory task at differing lengths of time from when they completed the other study measures. Days in between study sessions did not correlate with working memory capacity and private self-absorption continued to correlate with working memory capacity in multivariate analyses that statistically controlled for days in between study sessions. Test-retest reliability of the working memory task used in this study is strong (r = .83) at, on average, nearly two weeks (Unsworth et al., 2005) between administrations, with strong test-retest reliability seen among the private (r = .60) and public (r = .73) self-absorption scaled scores at, on average, seven weeks (McKenzie & Hoyle, 2008). Those data suggest relative stability among the study variable scores and that differing days between study sessions therefore unlikely influenced observed associations. Nonetheless, a standardized approach (e.g., having all participants complete the study tasks concurrently) would have mitigated the potential impact of differing administration dates on the interrelations. Related to the working memory capacity task, a domain-general task was chosen instead of a domain-specific task. This decision was made following findings that most clearly point to domain-general working memory capacity impairments in relation to anxiety (Moran, 2016), although domain-specific impairments could exist. Future research may seek to examine domain-specific working memory impairments in relation to self-absorption (e.g., verbal versus spatial, Vytal et al., 2013).

The sample composition consisted primarily of women and participants who self-identified as White. Self-absorption appears particularly prominent among women (Mor & Winquist, 2002) and some data suggest potential sex differences in activation within working memory networks (Hill, Laird, & Robinson, 2014), suggesting the potential importance of examining if sex moderates the observed association in future research. Moreover, given potential ethnoracial differences in the frequency of narrow types of self-absorption (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt, 2010), future research with a larger and more diverse sample may allow for the potential examination of ethnoracial differences in the context of self-absorption. Although all participants underwent a diagnostic interview, only a single rater completed the interview and those interviews were not audio recorded to allow for an examination of interrater agreement. Moreover, although a majority of participants were experiencing an emotional disorder, participants were eligible irrespective of diagnostic status to reduce the likelihood of potential range restrictions. The study variable scores were normally distributed in the study; however, future research may seek to replicate these findings among only individuals experiencing an emotional disorder. As noted, such an approach may have particular benefit when seeking to further examine public self-absorption.

Limitations notwithstanding, the present study provides an extension of existing research interested in self-absorption. Consistent with research examining rumination and worry, the broader tendency to engage in self-absorption is related to working memory capacity impairments. Future research examining whether there is a bidirectional association between those variables and if existing intervention strategies mitigate self-absorption via improving working memory capacity will help improve our conceptualization and treatment efforts of the transdiagnostic process that spans across emotional disorders.

Highlights.

  • Self-absorption is a transdiagnostic process underlying emotional disorders

  • Theory and extant data suggest self-absorption may relate to working memory

  • Self-absorption related to diminished working memory capacity

  • Relations found with the private, but not public, aspect of self-absorption

Funding sources

This work was supported by the Collaborative Faculty Research Investment Program (CFRIP) awarded to the first and last authors by their affiliated institutions. Moreover, research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P50HD103555 for use of the Clinical and Translational, and Preclinical-Clinical Core facilities. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Thomas A. Fergus, Baylor University, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience

Saira A. Weinzimmer, Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences One Baylor Plaza MS:350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

Sophie C. Schneider, Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences One Baylor Plaza MS:350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

Eric A. Storch, Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences One Baylor Plaza MS:350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, & Salekin RT (2018). Utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF) in the measurement of maladaptive personality and psychopathology. Assessment, 25, 596–607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bredemeier K, & Berenbaum H (2013). Cross-sectional and longitudinal relations between working memory performance and worry. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 4, 4420–4434. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brodey BB, First M, Linthicum J, Haman K, Sasiela JW, & Ayer D (2016). Validation of the NetSCID: An automated web-based adaptive version of the SCID. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 66, 67–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, & Aiken LA (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  6. Conway ARA, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, & Engle RW (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Engle RW (2001). What is working-memory capacity? In Roediger HL III, & Nairne JS (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 297–314). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  8. Engle RW, Tuholski TW, Laughlin JE, & Conway ARA (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Eysenck MW, Derakshan N, Santos R, & Calvo MG (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Faul F, Erdfeldner E, Buchner A, & Lang AB (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1.: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Field A (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gregory B, & Peters L (2017). Changes in the self during cognitive behavioural therapy for social anxiety disorder: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 52, 1–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Grol M, Schwenzfeier AK, Stricker J, Booth C, Temple-McCune A, Derakshan N, … Fox E (2018). The worrying mind in control: An investigation of adaptive working memory training and cognitive bias modification in worry-prone individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 103, 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harvey AG, Watkins E, Mansell W, & Shafran R (2004). Cognitive behavioural processes across psychological disorders: A transdiagnostic approach to research and treatment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hayes AF (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hayes AF, & Coutts JJ (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… . Communication Methods and Measures, 14, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hayes SC, & Hofmann SG (2018). Process-based CBT: The science and core clinical competencies of cognitive behavior therapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hill AC, Laird AR, & Robinson JL (2014). Gender differences in working memory networks: A BrainMap meta-analysis. Biological Psychology, 102, 18–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirsch CR, & Mathews A (2012). A cognitive model of pathological worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50, 636–646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hofmann W, Schmeichel BJ, & Baddeley AD (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 174–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunter LR, & Schmidt NB (2010). Anxiety psychopathology in African American adults: Literature review and development of an empirically informed sociocultural model. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 211–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ingram RE (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Joormann J, Levens SM, & Gotlib IH (2011). Rumination are associated with difficulties manipulating emotional material in working memory. Psychological Science, 22, 979–983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Joormann J, Yoon KL, & Zetsche U (2007). Cognitive inhibition in depression. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 12, 128–139. [Google Scholar]
  25. McEvoy PM, Mahoney AJ, & Moulds M (2010). Are worry, rumination, and post-event processing one and the same? Development of the Repetitive Thinking Questionnaire, Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 509–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. McKenzie KS, & Hoyle RH (2008). The Self-Absorption Scale: Reliability and validity in non-clinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 726–731. [Google Scholar]
  27. McLaughlin KA, Borkovec TD, & Sibrava NJ (2007). The effects of worry and rumination on affect states and cognitive activity. Behavior Therapy, 38, 23–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Michl LC, McLaughlin KA, Shepherd K, & Nolen-Hoeksema S (2013). Rumination as a mechanism linking stressful life events to symptoms of depression and anxiety: Longitudinal evidence in early adolescents and adults Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 339–352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mor N, & Winquist J (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638–662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moran TP (2016). Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 831–864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Onraedt T, & Koster EHW (2014). Training working memory to reduce rumination. PLoS One, 9, e909632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sari BA, Koster EHW, & Derakshan N (2017). The effects of active worrying on working memory capacity. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 995–1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Siegle GJ, Ghinassi F, & Thase ME (2007). Neurobehavioral therapies in the 21st century: Summary of an emerging field and an extended example of cognitive control training for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 235–262. [Google Scholar]
  34. Spinhoven P, van Hemert AM, & Penninx BW (2018). Repetitive negative thinking as a predictor of depression and anxiety: A longitudinal cohort study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 241, 216–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Topper M, Molenaar D, Emmelkamp PMG, & Ehring T (2014). Are rumination and worry two sides of the same coin? A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 5, 363–381. [Google Scholar]
  36. Trapnell PD, & Campbell JD (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Trezise K, & Reeve RA (2016). Worry and working memory influence each other iteratively over time. Cognition and Emotion, 30, 353–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Turner ML, & Engle RW (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 127–154. [Google Scholar]
  39. Unsworth N, Heitz RP, Schrock JC, & Engle RW (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Vytal KE, Cornwell BR, Letkiewicz AM, Arkin NE, & Grillon C (2013). The complex interaction between anxiety and cognition: Insight from spatial and verbal working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wanmaker S, Geraerts E, & Franken IHA (2015). A working memory training to decrease rumination in depressed and anxious individuals: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175, 310–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wells A (1990). Panic disorder in association with relaxation induced anxiety: An attentional training approach to treatment. Behavior Therapy, 21, 273–280. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wells A (2009). Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wells A (2019). Understanding and treating the human metacognitive control system to enhance mental health. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wells A, & Matthews G (1994). Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective. Hove, UK: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  46. Williams JBW, First M, Karg RS, & Spitzer R (2015). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
  47. Woodruff-Borden J, Brothers AJ, & Lister SC (2001). Self-focused attention: Commonalities across psychopathologies and predictors. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29, 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zetsche U, Bürkner PC, & Schulze L (2018). Shedding light on the association between repetitive negative thinking and deficits in cognitive control – a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 63, 56–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES