فصلنامه روان‌شناسی کاربردی

فصلنامه روان‌شناسی کاربردی

نقش طرحواره‌­های حوزة طرد و بریدگی در سوگیری توجه به اطلاعات دلبستگی

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده
قیصر ملکی
استادیار، گروه روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
10.48308/apsy.2026.246076.2085
چکیده
هدف: پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی نقش طرحواره‌های حوزه طرد و بریدگی در سوگیری پردازش تصاویر مرتبط با دلبستگی انجام شد.
روش: مطالعه حاضر از نوع توصیفی- همبستگی است. در این مطالعه 228 تن (187 زن) از دانشجویان مقاطع کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه شهید بهشتی با میانگین سنی 20/21 به طریق نمونه‌گیری در دسترس شرکت نمودند. شرکت‌کنندگان فرم کوتاه پرسشنامه طرحواره‌های ناسازگار اولیه یانگ (YSQ-SF-75)، مقیاس تجدیدنظرشده تجارب روابط نزدیک (ECR-R) و نسخه اصلاح‌شده آزمون دات‌پروب (DBT) را تکمیل کردند. داده‌ها با استفاده از همبستگی پیرسون و رگرسیون چندگانه تحلیل شدند.
یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد طرحواره‌های حوزه طرد و بریدگی با سوگیری توجه نسبت به تصاویر دلبستگی رابطه منفی و معنادار داشتند. طبق مدل رگرسیون، متغیرهای پیش‌بین توانستند بخش معناداری از واریانس سوگیری توجه به تصاویر مثبت (001/0>p، 75/19=(220، 7)F، 38=R2، 61/0=f2) و تصاویر منفی (001/0>p، 19/14=(220، 7)F، 31=R2، 45/0=f2) را تبیین کنند. در پیش‌بینی تصاویر مثبت، طرحواره‌های محرومیت هیجانی، رهاشدگی و نقص/شرم همراه با اضطراب و اجتناب دلبستگی نقش معناداری داشتند، در حالی که در تصاویر منفی، رهاشدگی، بی‌اعتمادی و اجتناب دلبستگی پیش‌بین‌های معنادار بودند.
نتیجه‌گیری: یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که طرحواره‌های مرتبط با طرد و بریدگی و ابعاد ناایمنی دلبستگی با الگوی اجتناب توجهی نسبت به محرک‌های مرتبط با روابط نزدیک همراه هستند. این نتایج از دیدگاه نظریه دلبستگی و نظریه طرحواره حمایت کرده و بر نقش پردازش‌های ضمنی در حفظ الگوهای رابطه‌ای ناسازگار تأکید می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
سوگیری توجه
طرحواره‌های ناسازگار اولیه
طرد و بریدگی
دلبستگی
دات‌پروب.
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

The Role of Rejection and Disconnection Schemas in Attentional Bias Toward Attachment-Related Information

نویسنده English

Gheysar Maleki
Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Aim: The present study aimed to investigate the role of rejection and disconnection domain schemas in attentional bias toward attachment-related images.
Method: This descriptive-correlational study included 228 undergraduate and graduate students (187 women) from Shahid Beheshti University, with a mean age of 21.20 years, who were recruited through convenience sampling. Participants completed the Young Schema Questionnaire–Short Form (YSQ-SF-75), the Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised questionnaire (ECR-R), and a modified version of the Dot-Probe Task (DBT). Data were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients and multiple regression analyses.
Results: The findings indicated that schemas within the rejection and disconnection domain were significantly and negatively associated with attentional bias toward attachment-related images. According to the regression models, the predictors significantly accounted for the variance in attentional bias toward positive images (p < 0.001, F(7, 220) = 19.75, R² = 0.38, f² = 0.61) and negative images (p < 0.001, F(7, 220) = 14.19, R² = 0.31, f² = 0.45). In predicting attentional bias toward positive images, the emotional deprivation, abandonment, and defectiveness/shame schemas, along with attachment anxiety and avoidance, were significant predictors. For negative images, abandonment, mistrust/abuse, and attachment avoidance emerged as significant predictors.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that rejection- and disconnection-related schemas and insecure attachment dimensions are associated with an avoidant pattern of attentional processing toward stimuli related to close relationships. These findings provide support for key assumptions of attachment theory and schema theory and highlight the role of implicit information-processing mechanisms in the maintenance of maladaptive relational patterns.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Attentional Bias
Early Maladaptive Schemas
Rejection And Disconnection
Attachment
Dot-Probe Task
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461–484. [link]
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969). [link]
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). The Guilford Press. [link]
Carlson, J. M., & Fang, L. (2020). The stability and reliability of attentional bias measures in the dot-probe task: Evidence from both traditional mean bias scores and trial-level bias scores. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 69, 101594. [link]
Chavis, J. M., & Kisley, M. A. (2012). Adult attachment and motivated attention to social images: Attachment-based differences in event-related brain potentials to emotional images. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 55–62. [link]
Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 203–216. [link]
Dan, O., Zreik, G., & Raz, S. (2020). The relationship between individuals with fearful-avoidant adult attachment orientation and early neural responses to emotional content: An event-related potentials (ERPs) study. Neuropsychology, 34(2), 155. [link]
De Raedt, R., Koster, E. H. W., & Ryckewaert, R. (2007). Attentional bias for threat and adult attachment: A dot-probe study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(6), 1307–1317. [link]
De Winter, S., Salemink, E., & Bosmans, G. (2018). Interpretation bias in middle childhood attachment: Causal effects on attachment memories and scripts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 102, 16–24. [link]
Fairchild, A. J., & Finney, S. J. (2006). Investigating validity evidence for the experiences in close relationships-revised questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(1), 116–135. [link]
Fraley, R. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. [link]
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. [link]
Koster, E. H., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & Van Damme, S. (2005). Time-course of attention for threatening pictures in high and low trait anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(8), 1087–1098. [link]
Levy, K. N., Ellison, W. D., Scott, L. N., & Bernecker, S. L. (2011). Attachment style. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (2nd ed., pp. 377–401). Oxford University Press. [link]
Liu, Y., Ding, Y., Lu, L., & Chen, X. (2017). Attention bias of avoidant individuals to attachment emotion pictures. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 41631. [link]
Maleki, G., Mazaheri, M. A., Nejati, V., Borhani, K., & Bosmans, G. (2023). The Attachment-related picture set (ARPS): development and validation. Current Psychology, 42(5), 3668–3679. [link]
May, T., Younan, R., & Pilkington, P. D. (2022). Adolescent maladaptive schemas and childhood abuse and neglect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(4), 1159–1171. [link]
Mellor, J., Millings, A., Rowe, A., & Walsh, J. (2021). The study of security priming on avoidant attentional biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 726817. [link]
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. [link]
Panaghi, L., Maleki, G., Zabihzadeh, A., Poshtmashhadi, M., & Soltaninezhad, Z. (2014). Validity, reliability, and factor analysis of experiences in Close Relationship (ECR) Scale. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, 19(4), 305–313. [link]
Pilkington, P. D., Bishop, A., & Younan, R. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and early maladaptive schemas in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 28(3), 569–584. [link]
Pilkington, P. D., Bishop, A., & Younan, R. (2023). Early maladaptive schemas and their impact on parenting: Do dysfunctional schemas pass generationally?—A systematic review. Current Psychology, 42(31), 27364–27380. [link]
Pilkington, P. D., Younan, R., & Karantzas, G. C. (2023). Identifying the research priorities for schema therapy: A Delphi consensus study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 30(2), 344–356. [link]
Schlochtermeier, L. H., Kuchinke, L., Pehrs, C., Urton, K., Kappelhoff, H., & Jacobs, A. M. (2013). Emotional picture and word processing: An fMRI study on effects of stimulus complexity. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e55619. [link]
Schmukle, S. C. (2005). Unreliability of the dot probe task. European Journal of Personality, 19(7), 595–605. [link]
Sojta, K., & Strzelecki, D. (2023). Early maladaptive schemas and their impact on parenting: Do dysfunctional schemas pass generationally?—A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(4), 1263. [link]
van Renterghem, B., De Winter, S., & Van den Bussche, E. (2022). Early maladaptive schemas and mental disorders in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 98, 102213. [link]
Vuilleumier, P., & Huang, Y. M. (2009). Emotional attention: Uncovering the mechanisms of affective biases in perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 148–152. [link]
Xu, I., Passell, E., Strong, R. W., Grinspoon, E., Jung, L., Wilmer, J. B., & Germine, L. T. (2025). No evidence of reliability across 36 variations of the emotional dot-probe task in 9,600 participants. Clinical Psychological Science, 13(2), 261–277. [link]
Xu, I., Passell, E., Strong, R. W., Grinspoon, E., Jung, L., Wilmer, J. B., & Germine, L. T. (2025). No evidence of reliability across 36 variations of the emotional dot-probe task in 9,600 participants. Clinical Psychological Science, 13(2), 261–277. [link]
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. The Guilford Press. [link]
Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1998). Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form. New York: Cognitive Therapy Center. [link]
Zheng, M., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2015). The effects of attachment avoidance and the defensive regulation of emotional faces: Brain potentials examining the role of preemptive and postemptive strategies. Attachment & Human Development, 17(1), 96–110. [link]
فصلنامه روان‌شناسی کاربردی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از 05 آبان 1405