Cited by 544Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Negative thinking in depression: cause, effect, or reciprocal relationship?

Teasdale, John D·1983·Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0146-6402(83)90013-9

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teasdale, J. D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Teasdale, John D
Venue
Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1983-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
3-25
ISSN
0146-6402 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038805857
Cited by
541
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
FWCI
14.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
negative thinking, depression, cognitive models of depression, cognitive vulnerability, mood and memory, associative network theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review