↓ Skip to main content

Do Patients With Depression Prefer Literal or Metaphorical Expressions for Internal States? Evidence From Sentence Completion and Elicited Production

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do Patients With Depression Prefer Literal or Metaphorical Expressions for Internal States? Evidence From Sentence Completion and Elicited Production
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Kauschke, Nadine Mueller, Tilo Kircher, Arne Nagels

Abstract

In everyday communication metaphoric expressions are frequently used to refer to abstract concepts, such as feelings or mental states. Patients with depression are said to prefer literal over figurative language, i.e. they may show a concreteness bias. Given that both emotional functioning and the processing of figurative language may be altered in this clinical population, our study aims at investigating whether and how these dysfunctions are reflected in the understanding and production of metaphorical expressions for internal states. We used two behavioral approaches: a sentence completion task and elicited speech production. In the first experiment, patients with ICD 10 depression (n = 26) and healthy controls (n = 32) were asked to complete sentences by selecting an appropriate word out of four alternatives (metaphorical expression, literal expression, concrete distractor, abstract distractor). All participants-irrespective of the presence of depression-chose more literal (60%) than metaphorical (40%) expressions. In the second experiment, patients with depression (n = 44) and healthy controls (n = 36) described pictures showing emotive events. The descriptions were transcribed and coded for type of expression (non-figurative words for internal states vs. metaphorical expressions, valence, type of metaphor, source and target domain of metaphor). In addition, the Thought and Language Index was applied to assess formal thought disorder. When talking about internal states, both groups used more literal than metaphorical expressions. The groups did not differ with respect to the composition of internal state language, but patients with depression tended to verbalize positive content to a lesser extent. Correlation analyses within the patients' group revealed that signs of disorganization in their speech were related to a higher use of internal state expressions, whereas a negative correlation was found with dysregulation phenomena. Taken together, results indicate that people with and without depression prefer literal means in order to verbalize internal states, but they additionally make use of figurative language. Since patients with depression were able to understand and produce metaphors for internal states similar to controls, the concreteness bias cannot be confirmed by the present study. The results contribute to existing research by demonstrating associations between symptoms of formal thought disorder and internal state language.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 32%
Linguistics 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,227,059
of 23,575,882 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,444
of 31,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,175
of 331,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#458
of 725 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,575,882 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,350 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 725 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.