Cited by 175Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Looking on the bright side: Accessing benign meanings reduces worry

Hirsch, Colette R., Hayes, Sarra, Mathews, Andrew·2009·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

This research investigated whether increasing access to benign outcomes of ambiguous events decreases excessive worry. Participants reporting high levels of worry were assigned either to practice in accessing benign meanings of threat-related homographs and emotionally ambiguous scenarios or to a control condition in which threatening or benign meanings were accessed with equal frequency. Results were assessed by use of a breathing focus task that involved categorizing the valence of thought intrusions before and after an instructed worry period and a test of working memory capacity available to participants while worrying. In comparison with the control group, the benign group reported fewer negative thought intrusions (as rated by both participants and an assessor) and less anxiety during the breathing focus task and showed greater residual working memory capacity while worrying. These findings suggest that enhancing access to benign outcomes is an effective method of reducing both the persistence of worry and its detrimental consequences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0013473

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • The thought intrusions task has been widely used to examine thought intrusions and worry in non-clinical groups, individuals with elevated worry, GAD, and associated conditions.

    “This task has been widely used to examine thought intrusions and worry in non-clinical groups (Krebs, Hirsch, & Mathews, 2010), individuals with elevated worry, and generalized anxiety disorder (Hayes et al., 2010, Hirsch et al., 2009) and associated conditions (i.e. insomnia symptoms, Baker, Baldwin, & Garner, 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hirsch, C. R., Hayes, S., & Mathews, A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2009-02
Volume
118
Issue
1
Pages
44-54
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2081847233
Cited by
175
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
17.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
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 › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
worry, anxiety, homographs, working memory capacity, threat appraisal, cognitive reappraisal
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Attention, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Surveys and Questionnaires, Semantics, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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