Cited by 228Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research TopicsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Rumination predicts heightened responding to stressful life events in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.

Open access
Ruscio, Ayelet Meron, Gentes, Emily L., Jones, Jason D., Hallion, Lauren S., Coleman, Elizabeth S., Swendsen, Joel·2015·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

Although studies have documented heightened stress sensitivity in major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), the mechanisms involved are poorly understood. One possible mechanism is the tendency to ruminate in response to stress. We used ecological momentary assessment to study ruminative thoughts after stressful events in 145 adults with MDD, GAD, comorbid MDD-GAD, or no psychopathology. Diagnosed individuals reported more event-related rumination than controls, even after adjusting for event stressfulness. Rumination was equally common in MDD and GAD and was especially severe among comorbid cases. More rumination immediately after the event predicted poorer affect, more maladaptive behavior, and more MDD and GAD symptoms at the next signal, even when pre-event levels of these variables were controlled. Rumination mediated, but did not moderate, the association of stress with affect and with symptoms. Stress-related rumination was more deleterious for diagnosed than healthy individuals, more intense for more severe clinical cases, and more persistent for cases with a greater temperamental vulnerability for emotional disorders. These results implicate rumination as a mechanism of stress sensitivity and suggest pathways through which it may maintain depression and anxiety in everyday life.

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/abn0000025

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • Although Ruscio et al. did not directly assess suicidality, reductions in negative affect may lower suicidality risks.

    “Suicidality was not assessed directly, but it may be inferred that reductions in negative affect may reduce suicidality risks.”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results section (page unavailable) reports negative affect and MDD/GAD symptoms as outcomes, but does not report a suicidality assessment. It finds that greater rumination predicted higher negative affect; it does not examine whether reducing negative affect lowers suicidality risk. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ruscio et al. found that the mindfulness intervention group had significant reductions in overall negative affect, immediate post-meditation craving, and cigarettes smoked per day over time.

    “Based on results from 37 participants, for the intervention group, she reports significant reductions in overall negative affect, F(1, 1798) = 13.8, P = 0.0002; reduced craving immediately post-meditation, (Group × Assessment Type interaction, F(2, 1796) = 12.3, P = 0.0001); and reduced cigarettes smoked per day over time (Group × Day interaction, F(1, 436) = 5.50, P = 0.01).”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Method (Participants and Procedure; page unavailable) describes an ecological momentary assessment study of people with MDD, GAD, or neither, not a mindfulness intervention. The Results passages address rumination and affect after stressful events. Searches for post-meditation craving, cigarettes smoked, 37 participants, and the quoted statistics found no passage addressing the attributed findings. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Contextual CBTs such as mindfulness-based therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy appear to succeed in treating nicotine addiction and promoting smoking cessation with minimal or no reported increased suicidality risk.

    “contextual CBTs such as mindfulness-based therapy and ACT appear to demonstrate success in treating nicotine addiction and promoting smoking cessation with minimal or no reported increased risk of suicidality.76,78,88”

    From Are smoking cessation treatments associated with suicidality risk? An overview (2016) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results section examines rumination and responses to stressful events in people with major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder. The Measures section mentions suicidal ideation as an assessed symptom, but does not evaluate treatment-related suicidality risk. Searches for mindfulness-based therapy, ACT, nicotine addiction, and smoking cessation found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In MDD and GAD, symptom severity and extensive comorbidity worsened rumination in response to stress.

    “which were further worsened by symptom severity and extensive comorbidity”
  • In both MDD and GAD clinical samples, rumination levels were higher in response to stressful situations.

    “Both clinical samples showed higher levels of rumination in response to stressful situations”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruscio, A. M., Gentes, E. L., Jones, J. D., Hallion, L. S., Coleman, E. S., & Swendsen, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Université de Bordeaux (FR)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2015-02
Volume
124
Issue
1
Pages
17-26
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2137352759
Cited by
228
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
21.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Sponsor name not included (K01 MH076162, R01 MH094425)
  • University Research Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
rumination, stress sensitivity, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, comorbidities, life events, affect, maladaptive behavior, mediation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Stress, Psychological, Thinking, Young Adult

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