Cited by 68Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory Processes and Influences

An experimental analogue study into the role of abstract thinking in trauma-related rumination

Ehring, Thomas, Szeimies, Anna-Kristina, Schaffrick, Christina·2009·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Trauma-related rumination has been shown to predict the maintenance of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, it is still unclear how rumination can be distinguished from functional forms of thinking about traumatic events. The current study used an analogue design to experimentally test the hypothesis that the abstractness of thinking is responsible for the dysfunctional effects of trauma-related rumination. Eighty-three healthy university students first watched a distressing video and were then randomly assigned to abstract ruminative thinking, concrete thinking or distraction. Abstract thinking was found to lead to a significantly longer maintenance of negative mood and arousal than both concrete thinking and distraction. These results are in line with earlier findings in the context of excessive worry and depressive rumination and support the view that abstractness is a critical factor for the dysfunctional effects of trauma-related rumination. However, results regarding intrusive memories were not supportive of the hypotheses. Unexpectedly, the distraction group showed the highest number of intrusions, whereas the abstract and concrete conditions did not significantly differ. Implications for theoretical models of trauma-related rumination and possible clinical implications are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.011

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
Ehring, T., Szeimies, A.-K., & Schaffrick, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Technische Universität Braunschweig (DE)
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
Corresponding author
Ehring, Thomas
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
285-293
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982645820
Cited by
68
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
abstract thinking, concrete thinking, post-traumatic stress disorder, negative mood, arousal, intrusive memories, distraction
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Random Allocation, Mental Recall, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Stress, Psychological, Thinking, Young Adult

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