CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mental habits: Metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking.

Verplanken, Bas, Friborg, Oddgeir, Wang, Catharina E., Trafimow, David, Woolf, Kristin·2007·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.526
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 8 studies, the authors investigated negative self-thinking as a mental habit. Mental content (negative self-thoughts) was distinguished from mental process (negative self-thinking habit). The negative self-thinking habit was assessed with a metacognitive instrument (Habit Index of Negative Thinking; HINT) measuring whether negative self-thoughts occur often, are unintended, are initiated without awareness, are difficult to control, and are self-descriptive. Controlling for negative cognitive content, the authors found that negative self-thinking habit was distinct from rumination and mindfulness, predicted explicit as well as implicit low self-esteem (name letter effect), attenuated a positivity bias in the processing of self-relevant stimuli, and predicted anxiety and depressive symptoms 9 months later. The results support the assumption that metacognitive reflection on negative self-thinking as mental habit may play an important role in self-evaluative processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.526

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 213

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Verplanken, B., Friborg, O., Wang, C. E., Trafimow, D., & Woolf, K.
Affiliations
  • UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
  • New Mexico State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2007
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
526-541
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.526
OpenAlex
W2083393605
Cited by
213
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Research Council of Norway
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
mental habits, metacognition, metacognitive reflection, rumination, mindfulness, self-esteem, positivity bias, anxiety, depressive symptoms, self-assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Cognition, Female, Habits, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, 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