Cited by 53Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory Processes and Influences

The prediction of intrusions following an analogue traumatic event: Peritraumatic cognitive processes and anxiety-focused rumination versus rumination in response to intrusions

Laposa, Judith M., Rector, Neil A.·2012·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Intrusions are often considered the hallmark of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite this, relatively little is known about factors that give rise to intrusions. Cognitive models of PTSD highlight the importance of pre-existing cognitive vulnerabilities, cognitive processing and anxiety during a traumatic event, as well as negative responses to trauma sequelae. However, few studies have examined multiple forms of peritraumatic processes, and rumination in response to trauma intrusions using analogue trauma tasks, and none have examined whether broader anxious ruminative processes contribute to intrusion development. In addition, little work has investigated the role of post-state anxiety in intrusions, and anxiety may be related to both peritraumatic processing and rumination. The current study employed a distressing film paradigm to examine key tenets of cognitive models of PTSD. Ninety-one female university students completed measures of anxiety, rumination in response to anxious symptoms, peritraumatic dissociation, data driven processing, lack of self referent processing, intrusions, and rumination in response to intrusions of the distressing film. Results revealed that peritraumatic dissociation, data driven processing, and self referent processing were associated with intrusion development, with lack of self referent processing being a strong predictor of intrusion development. Post-state anxiety and rumination in response to intrusions also predicted intrusion development. Discussion focuses on implications of cognitive processes and anxiety in theories of intrusion development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.12.007

Cites

65 of 65 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
Laposa, J. M., & Rector, N. A.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Laposa, Judith M.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
877-883
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978831320
Cited by
53
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
post-traumatic stress disorder, peritraumatic dissociation, bottom-up processing, rumination
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Attention, Depression, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Mental Recall, 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