Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 371–385

Information processing and feedback: Effects of mood and information favorability on the cognitive processing of personally relevant information

  • Rick E. Ingram


Although the cognitive processing of personally relevant feedback appears to be an important clinical issue, previous research has generally not examined this process. The present study presented a theoretical framework for conceptualizing the cognitive processing of feedback and employed this framework to investigate the influence of mood and feedback favorability upon feedback processing. Generally, it was proposed that in order for feedback to be understood and assimilated it must be processed “deeply,” where depth refers to the amont of cognitive analysis that the feedback receives. Using both reaction time and feedback recall to examine depth of processing, results indicated that unfavorable feedback is processed deeply when individuals are primed by a prior negative mood experience. Prior priming by a positive mood experience did not appear to have similar processing effects upon favorable feedback. Implications of these results for psychotherapy were discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108 441–485.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1976).Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H. (1978). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Cognitive theories in social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84 191–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, A. T. (1967).Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber.Google Scholar
  6. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory.American Psychologist, 36 129–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.). (1978).Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review, 82 407–428.Google Scholar
  9. Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1975). A process view of short-term memory retention. In F. Restle, R. M. Shiffrin, N. J. Castellan, H. R. Lindman, and D. B. Pisoni (Eds.).Cognitive theory (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 671–684.Google Scholar
  11. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 268–294.Google Scholar
  12. DeMonbreun, B. G., & Craighead, W. E. (1977). Perception and recall of evaluation feedback by depressed and nondepressed persons.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 311–329.Google Scholar
  13. Derry, P. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (1981). Schematic processing and self-reference in clinical depression.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90 286–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldfried, M. R. (1980). Psychotherapy process: Some views on effective principles.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4 280–285.Google Scholar
  15. Handelsman, M. M., & Snyder, C. R. (1982). Is “rejected” feedback really rejected? Effects of informativeness on reactions to positive and negative personality feedback.Journal of Personality, 50 169–179.Google Scholar
  16. Ingram, R. E., & Smith, T. W. (1982). Depression and internal versus external focus of attention.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8 139–152.Google Scholar
  17. Ingram, R. E., Smith, T. W., & Brehm, S. S. (1983). Depression and information processing: Self-schemata and the encoding of self-referent information.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 412–420.Google Scholar
  18. Johnston, W. A., & Heinz, S. P. (1979). Depth of nontarget processing in an attention task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5 168–175.Google Scholar
  19. Kerr, B. (1973). Processing demands during mental operations.Memory and Cognition, 1 401–412.Google Scholar
  20. Lachman, R., Lachman, J. L., & Butterfield, E. C. (1979).Cognitive psychology and information processing: An introduction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Layne, C. (1979). The Barnum effect: Rationality versus gullibility?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47 219–221.Google Scholar
  22. Mandler, G. (1975).Mind and emotion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Meehl, P. (1956). Wanted—A good cookbook.American Psychologist, 11 262–272.Google Scholar
  24. Merluzzi, T. V., Rudy, T. E., & Glass, C. R. (1981). The information processing paradigm: Implications for clinical science. In T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.),Cognitive assessment. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, B., Underwood, B., Heberlein, P., Doyle, L., & Litzie, K. (1979). Generalization of feedback about performance.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3 371–380.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, R. E., & Craighead, W. E. (1977). Perception of reinforcement, self-reinforcement, and depression.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86 379–388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Posner, M. I. (1982). Cumulative development of attentional theory.American Psychologist, 37 168–179.Google Scholar
  28. Rehm, L. P. (1977). A self-control model of depression.Behavior Therapy, 8 787–804.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, T. B., Kuper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 677–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, T. W., Snyder, C. R., & Handelsman, M. M. (1982). On the self-serving function of an academic wooden leg: Test anxiety as a self-handicapping strategy.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 314–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Snyder, C. R., & Cowles, C. (1979). Impact of positive and negative feedback based on personality and intellectual assessment.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47 207–209.Google Scholar
  32. Snyder, C. R., Ingram, R. E., Handelsman, M. M., Wells, D. S., & Huwieler, R. (1982). Desire for personal feedback: Who wants it and what does it mean for therapy?Journal of Personality, 50 316–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Snyder, C. R., Ingram, R. E., & Newburg, C. L. (1982). The role of feedback in helping relationships. In T. A. Wills (Ed.),Basic processes in the helping relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  34. Snyder, C. R., & Newburg, C. L. (1981). The Barnum effect in a group setting: Effects of favorability, source status, and answerability upon reactions to personality feedback.Journal of Personality Assessment, 45 622–629.Google Scholar
  35. Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Lowery, C. R. (1977). Acceptance of personality interpretations: The “Barnum effect” and beyond.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45 104–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases.Science, 185 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  37. Weiner, I. B. (1975).Principles of psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Werner, A. E., & Rehm, L. P. (1975). Depressive affect: A test of behavioral hypotheses.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84 221–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965).Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick E. Ingram
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology ClinicSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations