Cited by 289Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The relationship between rumination, avoidance and depression in a non-clinical sample.

Moulds, Michelle L., Kandris, Eva, Starr, Susannah, Wong, Amanda C.M.·2007·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Recent commentaries have proposed conceptualizations of rumination in terms of both cognitive and behavioral avoidance. This study examined the relationship between rumination, avoidance and depression using a newly developed self-report measure of avoidance in depression, the Cognitive-Behavioral Avoidance Scale (CBAS) [Ottenbreit, N.D., & Dobson, K.S. (2004). Avoidance and depression: The construction of the cognitive-behavioral avoidance scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 293-313]. A non-clinical sample (N=104) of undergraduate students completed self-report measures of depression, anxiety, rumination and avoidance. Rumination, avoidance and depression were all significantly correlated. Rumination and behavioral avoidance remained intercorrelated when anxiety was controlled, confirming an association that is independent of anxiety. By contrast, the relationship between cognitive avoidance and rumination disappeared when anxiety was partialled out. Notably, avoidance predicted unique variance in depression scores, over and above anxiety and rumination. Consistent with the proposal of Ottenbreit and Dobson [Avoidance and depression: The construction of the cognitive-behavioral avoidance scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 293-313], our findings support the value of clinicians and psychopathologists giving consideration to avoidance in their conceptualization of depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.003

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moulds, M. L., Kandris, E., Starr, S., & Wong, A. C. M.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Moulds, Michelle L.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-02
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
251-261
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054658204
Cited by
289
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of New South Wales
  • Australian Research Council
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 › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
rumination, avoidance, depression, cognitive avoidance, behavioral avoidance, anxiety, non-clinical sample, undergraduate students, conceptualization of depression
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Sex Factors, Social Behavior, Thinking

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