Tobias Kube
@tobikube.bsky.social
3.2K followers 710 following 110 posts
Professor of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology at Uni Frankfurt. Head of the Emmy Noether Group for Experimental Research on Depression. Interested in how people construe and sustain their subjective reality.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
tobikube.bsky.social
Happy to see the next article of our special issue in BRAT (open access): The authors investigated the associaiton of social anxiety and belief updating in the context of the jumping-to-conclusion bias, using a Bayesian compuational modelling approach. Details👇 www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti....
The effect of state anxiety on jumping-to-conclusions bias in social anxiety: An experimental and computational modelling study
Research indicates that the tendency to make hasty decisions based on minimal information, also known as the Jumping-to-Conclusions bias, may be linke…
www.sciencedirect.com
tobikube.bsky.social
From my perspective, an intriguing finding from this study is that the two factors are relatively independent from each other. You could expect the level of fear to reduce when expectancies are violated, and vice versa, but the authors show that these factors independently predict treatment outcome.
tobikube.bsky.social
Thanks to Edith in particular for this nice work, but also to @neutrophine.bsky.social and Julia Glombiewski for supporting this research!
tobikube.bsky.social
Why is this relevant? How we search for information determines the subjective reality each of us construes. Understanding the biases people with dep symptoms have in this information seeking process may thus explain why they often end up with a negative view of themselves and the world.
tobikube.bsky.social
Key findings: i) Depression is related to a greater incongruence between self-perception and anticipated perception by others; that is, people with dep symptoms view themselves more negatively than they expect to be viewed by others. ii) Depression is overall reduced to less feedback seeking.
tobikube.bsky.social
Excited to share this new article of my PhD student Edith Rapo on the association between depression and seeking feedback from others about oneself, depending on the anticipated feedback's valence and congruence with the self-perception. Open Acces in BRAT 👇 www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Better to keep a negative self-perception than ask for feedback? - How depressive symptoms are associated with the desire for social feedback
We investigated whether depressive symptom severity is associated with incongruence between how people perceive themselves (self-perception) and how t…
www.sciencedirect.com
tobikube.bsky.social
Happy to share the first meta-analysis on biased belief updating in depression, published in Clin Psych Rev. Across 29 studies, depression was related to a reduced belief update following positive information, but not to an increased update following neg info. 👇 authors.elsevier.com/c/1lsBL~0r1z...
authors.elsevier.com
tobikube.bsky.social
Unfortunately, in the production process, the publisher confused Figure 1 with a figure that was actually supposed to be presented in the supplementary material only. Here's the real Figure 1, which is missing now in main article 🙈🤷‍♂️.
tobikube.bsky.social
Key findings: 1) the greater the expectation-outcome discrepancy, the greater the update; 2) in the entire (non-clinical) sample greater update for positive expectation-outcome discrepancies than for negative ones; 3) depressive symptoms related to more neg updating following neg social experiences
tobikube.bsky.social
Therefore, my plea is to first do an initial content check to see whether a submission in principle is suitable, and if so - and deemed necessary - formatting requirements can be made afterwards. In case of desk rejections this would save authors valuable time as compared to the status quo.
tobikube.bsky.social
2) if this information was really missing, it could still be requested after the initial content review by an editor has determined that the paper could in principle be considered for pub. If it was not eligible anyway (for reasons mentioned above), addressing these issues would not change anything.
tobikube.bsky.social
I can already hear the objection that such information is important for assessing whether an article meets the required scientific standards. That is true, but 1), in my opinion, one could expect a commercial publisher to check for themselves whether the information is already available in the doc.
tobikube.bsky.social
Same applies to competing interest statements, data availability, preregistration, etc., which are required to be placed at a specific section although they were already presented in another section. Often such information is to be provided multiple times, as the editorial manager also asks for it.
tobikube.bsky.social
To give a few examples of what I consider avoidable requirements for authors, which lead to a paper being unsubmitted and returned to the auhors, before it receives full consideration: placing an ethics statement before the references list, although the statement was already in the methods section.
tobikube.bsky.social
This desk rejection could have been made anyway, without previously asking the authors to do the time-consuming and often annoying formatting issues, because often the reasons for a desk rejection could have been assessed at the outset (e.g., small sample size, lack of fit with the scope, etc.).
tobikube.bsky.social
Many journals still operate according to the rule that the administrative editorial office first checks the formalities of a submission and asks authors to make time-consuming revisions before an editor looks at the content of a submission for the first time. The result often is a desk rejection.
tobikube.bsky.social
Dear journal editors, I urge you to establish or expand author-friendly submission guidelines that avoid unnecessary time-consuming formatting work. Although some journals have already made progress in this area, there is still much room for improvement. A plea based on a few painful experiences 👇.
tobikube.bsky.social
So much fun to be at the annual congress of the @cbmassociation.bsky.social. Thanks to Yannick Vander Zwalmen for putting together a nice symposium, to which I could contribute, and to the organisation committee for nicely hosting this conference. Looking forward to future conferences!
tobikube.bsky.social
Great to see the third article of our special issue on belief updating out in BRAT. In two studies, Gabriella Tyson et al. examined the associations among belief updating, anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty. For details, see the Open Access publication: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti....
Testing associations between negative interpretation inflexibility, anxiety symptoms and intolerance of uncertainty
Anxiety is a highly prevalent psychological problem. Transdiagnostic mechanisms such as intolerance of uncertainty and repetitive negative thinking (R…
www.sciencedirect.com
Reposted by Tobias Kube
goetheuni.bsky.social
🎬 Neuer Prof an der #GoetheUni! Prof. Dr. @tobikube.bsky.social forscht zu depressionsbezogenen Informationsverarbeitungsprozessen sowie #PTBS, somatischen Belastungsstörungen & Placebo-/Nocebo-Effekten. Jetzt kennenlernen: youtu.be/AY7Dh4--1mM #Neuberufen
tobikube.bsky.social
Thanks to coauthors @rief01.bsky.social @evalottabrakemeier.bsky.social and Bluesky-less others. Thanks to @dfg.de for funding this study and thanks to @universitypress.cambridge.org for the great work on publishing this article.
tobikube.bsky.social
🥳🎉New article on a comparison of episodic vs. persistent (i.e., chronic) depression. Key finding: people with persistent depression have lower treatment expectations and more difficulty to adjust them in response to new information. Open Access in Psychological Med: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Differences between persistent and episodic depression in processing novel positive information | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core
Differences between persistent and episodic depression in processing novel positive information - Volume 55
www.cambridge.org