CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesAging and Gerontology ResearchMind wandering and attention

The structure and health correlates of trait repetitive thought in older adults

Open access
Segerstrom, Suzanne C., Roach, Abbey R., Evans, Daniel R., Schipper, Lindsey J., Darville, Audrey K.·2010·Psychology and Aging
DOI 10.1037/a0019456PMC PMC2944001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Repetitive thought (RT) involves frequent or prolonged thoughts about oneself and one's world, encompassing discrete forms such as trait worry, rumination, processing, and reminiscing. These forms of RT can be described using 3 basic, underlying qualities: total propensity for RT of all types, valence (positive vs. negative content), and purpose (searching or uncertainty vs. solving or certainty). The adaptiveness of discrete forms with regard to health is likely to be related to these qualities, particularly valence and total propensity. The present study confirmed the model and identified the relationship of these qualities of RT to subjective psychological, physical, and cognitive health in older adults aged 60-94 (N = 179). As predicted, more negatively valenced trait RT was associated with worse psychological, physical, and cognitive health. More total propensity for RT was associated only with worse psychological health. Searching purpose was associated only with worse cognitive health. In turn, negatively valenced RT was predicted by poorer executive functions, suggesting that such functions may be important for directing this quality of RT. The valence of older adults' RT is important insofar as it may contribute to their sense of good or ill health. However, the propensity for all kinds of RT to associate with poorer psychological health may reflect the co-occurrence of negative and positive RT, such as rumination and emotional processing. Although RT has not been extensively investigated in older adults, it appears to play an important role in their subjective health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0019456

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 RRQ has demonstrated excellent internal consistency and construct validity for assessing repetitive self-focused thought.

    “The RRQ has been used in both nonclinical and caregiving contexts (Segerstrom et al., 2010; Waldman-Levi et al., 2020), demonstrating excellent internal consistency and construct validity for assessing repetitive self-focused thought.”

    From Mindfulness and rumination: stress pathways for caregivers of persons living with dementia. (2026) · cites this paper as Segerstrom et al., 2010

    The Method (Measures; page not available) uses the RRQ’s rumination and reflection subscales to assess repetitive thought about the self, and describes participants from caregiver and community studies. The cited paper does not report excellent internal consistency or establish construct validity for the RRQ specifically; the reliability figures shown in the supplied passages concern a different coding system. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Evans DR Segerstrom SC Mindfulness, repetitive thought, and self-regulation 2009 Manuscript under review
  2. Segerstrom SC Kemeny ME Plotnikoff N Faith RE Murgo AJ Worried to death? Stress, worry, and immune dysregulation in health and HIV Cytokines, Stress, and Immunity 2006 17 28 CRC Press Boca Raton, FL 2nd Ed

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Segerstrom, S. C., Roach, A. R., Evans, D. R., Schipper, L. J., & Darville, A. K.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010-09
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
505-515
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
DOI
10.1037/a0019456
PMC
PMC2944001
OpenAlex
W1972771461
Cited by
68
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Dana Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (R01-AG026307; P50-AG05144)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
repetitive thinking, older adults, trait worry, rumination, reminiscence, emotional processing, valence, mental health, physical health, cognitive health, executive function, subjective well-being
MeSH terms
Affect, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Female, Health Status, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Neuropsychological Tests, Self Concept, Thinking, Reproducibility of Results, Executive Function

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