基于言语评价接收的抑郁与焦虑感知差异研究

Perceptual Differences in Depression and Anxiety Based on Verbal Evaluation Reception

摘要: 目的：既有研究表明抑郁与焦虑均影响社会反馈加工，但二者在言语接收(uptake)层面的特异性差异尚不明确。本研究旨在从心理语言学视角，探究抑郁倾向、焦虑倾向及共病个体在加工自我相关称赞与指责时的情感反应与真实性判断差异，以寻找区分两类症状的客观行为标记。方法：招募116名成年被试，依据贝克抑郁量表(BDI-II)和状态–特质焦虑量表(STAI)筛选出抑郁组、焦虑组、共病组及健康对照组。采用标准化言语评价判断任务，要求被试阅读并评估一系列指向自我的称赞、指责及中性陈述。被试需对每条言语评价的“愉悦度”和“真实性”进行量化评分。结果：研究发现各组在言语加工模式上存在显著分离。抑郁组表现出特异性的“负性强化”与“正性钝化”，即显著高估指责的真实性，同时系统性否定称赞的真实性。相反，焦虑组在私密语境下对称赞的真实性判断与健康组无异，未表现出认知拒绝。共病组呈现介于抑郁与焦虑之间的中间模式，提示焦虑症状对抑郁的认知偏差存在遮蔽效应。结论：对称赞的认知拒绝是抑郁倾向区别于焦虑倾向的核心心理语言学特征。本研究证实了抑郁者负性自我图式对言语接收的僵化过滤作用，而单纯焦虑者的评价加工障碍更具情境依赖性。基于称赞接收度的行为指标具有作为早期鉴别与筛查工具的潜力。

Abstract: Objective: Existing research has established that both depression and anxiety affect social feedback processing; however, their specific differences at the level of verbal uptake remain unclear. From a psycholinguistic perspective, this study aims to investigate differences in emotional responses and authenticity judgments when processing self-relevant praise and criticism among individuals with depressive tendencies, anxious tendencies, and comorbid symptoms, in order to identify objective behavioral markers that distinguish between the two symptom types. Methods: A total of 116 adult participants were recruited and categorized into depressive, anxious, comorbid, and healthy control groups based on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). A standardized verbal evaluation judgment task was employed, requiring participants to read and evaluate a series of self-directed praise, criticism, and neutral statements. Participants rated each statement on “pleasantness” and “perceived authenticity”. Results: The study revealed significant group differences in verbal processing patterns. The depressive group exhibited a specific pattern of “negative reinforcement and positive blunting”, characterized by significantly overestimating the authenticity of criticism while systematically denying the authenticity of praise. In contrast, the anxious group showed no difference from the healthy controls in judging the authenticity of praise in private contexts, indicating an absence of cognitive rejection. The comorbid group displayed an intermediate pattern between depression and anxiety, suggesting that anxious symptoms may mask the cognitive biases associated with depression. Conclusion: Cognitive rejection of praise is a core psycholinguistic feature distinguishing depressive tendencies from anxious tendencies. This study confirms the rigid filtering effect of negative self-schemas on verbal uptake in depression, whereas evaluation processing disturbances in pure anxiety are more context-dependent. Behavioral indicators based on the reception of praise hold potential as tools for early differentiation and screening.