An experimental investigation of the role of negative mood in worry: The role of appraisals that facilitate systematic information processing Suzanne R. Dash * , Graham C.L. Davey School of Psychology, The University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK article info Article history: Received 27 July 2011 Received in revised form 29 November 2011 Accepted 2 December 2011 Keywords: Worry Systematic processing Negative mood abstract Background and Objectives: Negative mood is associated with increased worry levels, and also with deployment of a systematic information processing style. An experimental study assessed the potential role of systematic information processing in mediating the facilitative effect of negative mood on worry (e.g. Johnston & Davey, 1997). Method: Participants underwent appropriate vignette-based mood inductions (negative, neutral, and cognitive priming). Participants completed visual analogue scales measuring variables that reflect a raised processing sufficiency threshold and are known to increase systematic processing (responsi- bility, accountability, desire for control, and need for cognition), a measure of ‘as many as can’ worry stop rule deployment, and two measures of worry (the catastrophising interview and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire, PSWQ, Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990). Results: Experimentally-induced negative mood facilitated the endorsement of cognitive appraisals known to increase systematic as opposed to heuristic information processing. In addition, a meditational analysis showed that the systematic processing facilitators measure together with a measure of ‘as many as can’ worry stop rule deployment fully mediated the relationship between negative mood and a measure of worry frequency (PSWQ). Limitations: Future studies should develop and validate direct measures of systematic processing. Conclusions: Similarities and differences between systematic processing and chronic worrying as effortful forms of information processing are discussed, and a role for systematic processing as an information processing style relevant to understanding worrisome thought is described. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Worry is defined as a “chain of thoughts and images, negatively affect laden and relatively uncontrollable” (Borkovec, Robinson, Pruzinsky, & DePree, 1983, p. 10), and one of the most apparent characteristics of chronic worriers is that they experience endemic negative mood (Davey, Hampton, Farrell, & Davidson, 1992; Metzger, Miller, Cohen, Sofka, & Borkovec, 1990; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990; Tallis, Eysenck, & Mathews, 1991; Wisocki, Handen, & Morse, 1986). This association may emerge from the negative cognitive processes associated with chronic worrying such as negative outcome anticipation (Szabó & Lovibond, 2002), processing negative thoughts (Borkovec, Ray, & Stober, 1998), catastrophising (Davey, 2006a), and thoughts about personal inadequacy (Davey & Levy, 1998). However, a number of studies support the view that, rather than simply being a conse- quence of worrying, negative mood is a causal contributor. Johnston and Davey (1997) found that inducing negative mood resulted in significantly more catastrophising steps being gener- ated during a worry catastrophising interview than positive or neutral moods. This and similar studies (e.g. Startup & Davey, 2001 , 2003) demonstrate that negative mood has a causal effect on worry perseveration, and is not simply an outcome of worrying. One possible mechanism is that negative mood influences the style of information processing that individuals employ. A signifi- cant body of literature suggests that when in a negative mood, an individual is more likely to use an analytic processing style (e.g. Ambady & Gray, 2002; Tiedens & Linton, 2001). Within the Heuristic-Systematic Model of information processing, this effortful processing is called systematic processing, which is described as an “analytic orientation in which perceivers access and scrutinise all informational input for its relevance and importance. and inte- grate all useful information in forming their judgements” (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989, p. 212). This is contrasted with heuristic * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1273 877551. E-mail address: s.dash@sussex.ac.uk (S.R. Dash). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbtep 0005-7916/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.12.002 J. Behav. Ther. & Exp. Psychiat. 43 (2012) 823e831