Negative cognitive biases and maladaptive emotion regulation are established risk factors for depression. However, longitudinal studies have primarily focused on how these biases exacerbate the regulation of negative affect, often overlooking the concurrent role of positive affect regulation. This study provides an integral analysis of how negative attention and interpretation biases predict changes in depressive symptoms via the differential use of both negative (brooding, reappraisal) and positive (dampening, positive rumination) regulation strategies. A longitudinal study was conducted with 185 participants assessed at three time-points over three months. At baseline (T1), participants completed a task assessing negative attention and interpretation biases and reported depressive symptoms. Six weeks later (T2), they reported their use of emotion regulation strategies and perceived stress. Depressive symptoms and stress were reassessed at T3 (six weeks post-T2). Structural equation modeling supported a model where both negative and positive rumination at T2 significantly mediated the predictive role of negative cognitive biases at T1 on depressive symptom changes at T3. These indirect effects remained significant even after controlling for perceived stress. The main limitations include the use of a non-clinical undergraduate sample, which may limit generalizability, and the reliance on self-report measures to assess emotion regulation. Results highlight the relevance of negative and positive rumination as distinct mediators linking cognitive biases to depression risk. These findings suggest that comprehensive prevention strategies should target the regulation of positive affect in addition to negative affect. • Negative cognitive biases predict depressive symptom changes over time • Both negative and positive rumination mediate bias–depression links • Positive affect regulation plays a key role in depression risk • Mediation effects remain after controlling for perceived stress • Prevention should target regulation of both negative and positive affect
Muñoz-Conejo et al. (Fri,) studied this question.