Cited by 88Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies

An initiation–termination two-phase model of worrying

Berenbaum, Howard·2010·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Researchers have identified many factors that are associated with worrying, ranging from a verbal/left hemisphere bias to intolerance of uncertainty. This paper describes an initiation-termination (IT) two-phase model of worrying that attempts to comprehensively put together the many different pieces of the puzzle. The first phase of the model concerns the development of perceptions of threat, which initiates the process of worrying. The strength of a perceived threat is influenced by the perceived probability and cost of an undesirable future outcome, along with danger/risk salience. The second phase concerns acceptance of the prospect of an uncertain future threat, which terminates the process of worrying. Factors that play roles in this second phase include beliefs about the value of worrying, the desire for certainty, a perseverative-iterative style, and a sense of closure regarding one's role in trying to prevent or plan for the threat. The factors that play roles in these two phases are discussed, as are the implications of the model for conceptualizing, treating and conducting research on worrying.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.011

Cites

124 of 124 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berenbaum, H.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Berenbaum, Howard
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
962-975
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062225049
Cited by
88
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
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 › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Keywords
worry, anxiety, threat perception, intolerance of uncertainty, risk salience
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Anxiety Disorders, Attention, Fear, Goals, Humans, Internal-External Control, Judgment, Models, Psychological, Probability Learning, Risk-Taking, Social Perception, Uncertainty

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