Catastrophic worrying: Personal inadequacy and a perseverative iterative style as features of the catastrophizing process
Abstract
This article describes 6 studies that have used a catastrophizing interview technique to investigate some of the characteristics of catastrophic worrying. The main findings were (a) worriers were willing to catastrophize both a positive aspect of their life and a new hypothetical worry significantly more than nonworriers, (b) worriers were more likely than nonworriers to rate catastrophizing steps for a new worry as containing information relevant to existing worries, (c) worriers displayed a general iterative style that was independent of the valency of the iterative task, and (d) worriers tended to couch their worries in terms of personal inadequacies, and personal inadequacy became a feature of their catastrophizing regardless of the worry topic. Worriers' tendency to couch worries and catastrophizing steps in terms of personal inadequacies and their perseverative iterative style are both important contributors to the unresolved catastrophic thought experienced by chronic worriers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
During worry, worriers produce more catastrophizing steps than nonworriers.
“Worriers generate significantly more catastrophizing steps than do nonworriers during worry, and as catastrophizing unfolds they demonstrate a significant increase in subjective discomfort compared to nonworriers (Davey & Levy, 1998; Vasey & Borkovec, 1992).”
From A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry (2011) · cites this paper as Davey & Levy, 1998
While catastrophizing progresses, worriers report a larger rise in discomfort than nonworriers.
“Worriers generate significantly more catastrophizing steps than do nonworriers during worry, and as catastrophizing unfolds they demonstrate a significant increase in subjective discomfort compared to nonworriers (Davey & Levy, 1998; Vasey & Borkovec, 1992).”
From A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry (2011) · cites this paper as Davey & Levy, 1998
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 35 · Cited by 153
- Authors
- Davey, G. C. L., & Levy, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- ORCID
- Davey, Graham C. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 576-586
- ISSN
- 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1846
- OpenAlex
- W2045635834
- Cited by
- 153
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (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 › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
- Keywords
- catastrophizing, personal inadequacy, perseverative thinking, worry, chronic worry
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Personality, Personality Assessment, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reference Values, Self-Assessment, Self Concept, Social Perception
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
