1. Effectiveness of Group CBT with Memory Specificity Training and Self-Distancing in Moderately Depressed Adults
Peter John Sabatelli
PhD Clinical Psychology Student
Texila American University

2. Group A v Group B: main findings
Summary
Group A v Group B: main findings
Statistically significant with large effect sizes
Clinically significant
Rumination : mediator for memory specificity
Mood improved by AMS via rumination
SD enhanced both CBT and MEST
Limitations
Future research

3. So What? Stagnation in CBT outcomes for depression
(Johnsen & Friborg, 2015)
Neshat-Doost et al, 2013, p 7 and Dalgleish
et al, 2014, p 8, suggested using MEST as an
adjunct with CBT.
Kross and Ayduk, 2011, p 189; Kross et al,
2012, p566, suggested using SD with
depressed adults, under a ‘’variety of conditions’’
UK participants, not done.

4. Background OGM: recurrence, increased severity and
duration of depression (Williams et al.,2007)
AMS: improves depression; reduces
vulnerability to relapse (Raes et al., 2009)
Self-memory system & CarFAX model
MEST studies: Raes et al., 2009; Neshat-Doost
et al., 2013; Eigenhuis et al., 2015
Limitations and suggestions

5. Background cont. FA Knowledge e.g problem solving Capture & Rumination
AMS
OGM
Capture & Rumination
Conway, & Playdell-Pearce, 2000)
Functional
Avoidance-FA FA
Suppression
(Williams et al., 2007)

6. Background cont Step back, observer perspective in recalling memories
Distancing
Step back, observer perspective in recalling memories
Memories broad, less detailed
Emotions dulled (Williams & Moulds, 2008)
Reconstrue
Distancing allows broader perspective to be taken
Reflection led to active coping( Marroquin et al., 2010)
Adaptive explanation, understanding, meaning, insight and sense of closure (Kross et al., 2012; 2014; Kross & Ayduk, 2008, 209, 2011).
Emotional Regulation
Current & future distress reduced
less rumination (Kross & Ayduk, 2008) more problem-solving behaviour (Ayduk & Kross, 2010) and improved mood (Kross, Gard, Deldin, Clifton and Ayduk, 2012).

7. Psychological Distance
Background cont.
Psychological Distance
Small (Spatial & Temporal) Large
Low Construal Level High
Concrete, superficial, Abstract, simple,
complicated, unrelated primary, neutral,
to goals, corresponds related to high
to ‘’how’’ questions, goals, correspond
contextual to ‘’why’’ type
questions; out
of context
(Trope & Liberman, 2010)

8. Methodology Ethical approval (BPS, 2014) Mixed group design: 2 x 3
Independent variables : Treatments & Time
Dependent variables: AMS, BDI-II, RRS, PSI
& WBSI
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Recruited via advertisements plus screening
Consent obtained & 120 randomised

9. Results RMANOVA significant result Table 1
Univariate ANOVA: between group results for each dependent variable at post-treatment  
Hypothesis DV df = F p partial η2
One AMS (1, 108) = , <
Two BDI-II (1, 108) = <
Three RRS, (1, 108) = <
Four PSI (1, 108) = <
Five WBSI (1, 108) = <
 DV=dependent variable; df= degrees of freedom; F= distribution; p = significance level

10. Results cont.
Table 2
Univariate ANOVA: between group results for each dependent variable at three month FU
 Hypothesis DV df = F p partial η2
One AMS (1, 108) = <
Two BDI-II (1, 108) = <
Three RRS, (1, 108) = <
Four PSI (1, 108) = <
Five WBSI (1, 108) = <
 DV=dependent variable; df= degrees of freedom; F= distribution; p = significance level
Independent t-test results: group A significant on all DV’s

11. Results cont.
Multiple regression analysis: the overall model was significant, F (3, 106) = , p < .001, R2 = .385, accounting for 38.5% of the variance
Multiple regression analysis: The overall model was significant, F (4, 105) = , p < .001, R2 = .920, accounting for 92% of the variance.
Clinical significant for group A- see table 3
Group Pre: BDI-II Post: BDI-II 3mth FU Change %CI:Clinical Significance
A (achieved)
(achieved)
B (not achieved)
(achieved)
 Note: input used- SD=11.8, test-retest=0.90 (Steer et al., 1999); (Devilly, 2004) .

12. Discussion Hypothesis one to six: null rejected, alternative accepted
Confirmed Raes et al., 2009 findings for AMS
Greater AMS scores achieved in Group A compared to previous MEST studies. SD may have facilitated AMS recall in MEST.
Greater improved BDI-II and RRS, PSI, WBSI scores achieved in Group A compared group B. SD may have enhanced cognitive reframing in CBT and enhanced CBT overall.
Clarifies that mood improvement found in previous MEST studies, may have been due to a AMS reciprocal relationship with RRS

13. Conclusion
Addressed need to enhance contemporary CBT by expanding the work of previous researchers in the area of MEST for depression and self-distancing (SD)
Group CBT with MEST and SD is feasible and more effective than group CBT with MEST and possibly group CBT for depression over seven sessions with three month follow-up
The treatment was ‘’scalable’’, cost effective may reduce one risk factor OGM’s that is associated depression relapse
Limitations and future research

14. Key references
Conway, M.A. & Pleydell-Pearce, C.W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical
  memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107, 261–88. doi:
// X
Johnsen, T. J., & Friborg, O. (2015, May 11). The Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy As an Anti-Depressive Treatment is Falling: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi:org/ /bul
Sumner, J.A., Griffith, J.W., & Mineka, S. (2010). Overgeneral autobiographical
memory as a predictor of the course of depression: A meta-analysis. Behaviour
Research Therapy, 48, 614–625. doi: /j.brat
Williams, J.M.G., Barnhofer, T., Crane, C., Herman, D., Raes, F., Watkins, E., & Dalgleish, T. (2007). Autobiographical memory specificity and emotional disorder. Psychological Bulletin, 133,:122–148. doi:  /