Cited by 31Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Unique contributions of metacognition and cognition to depressive symptoms

Open access
Yilmaz, Adviye Esin, Gençöz, Tülin, Wells, Adrian·2015·The Journal of General Psychology

Abstract

This study attempts to examine the unique contributions of "cognitions" or "metacognitions" to depressive symptoms while controlling for their intercorrelations and comorbid anxiety. Two-hundred-and-fifty-one university students participated in the study. Two complementary hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed, in which symptoms of depression were regressed on the dysfunctional attitudes (DAS-24 subscales) and metacognition scales (Negative Beliefs about Rumination Scale [NBRS] and Positive Beliefs about Rumination Scale [PBRS]). Results showed that both NBRS and PBRS individually explained a significant amount of variance in depressive symptoms above and beyond dysfunctional schemata while controlling for anxiety. Although dysfunctional attitudes as a set significantly predicted depressive symptoms after anxiety and metacognitions were controlled for, they were weaker than metacognitive variables and none of the DAS-24 subscales contributed individually. Metacognitive beliefs about ruminations appeared to contribute more to depressive symptoms than dysfunctional beliefs in the "cognitive" domain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00221309.2014.964658

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Findings in mental health settings demonstrate that metacognitive beliefs are associated with anxiety and depression and that negative metacognitive beliefs of uncontrollability and danger show the strongest and most reliable relationships with these symptoms.

    “The results of the review mirror findings in mental health settings, which demonstrate that metacognitive beliefs are associated with anxiety and depression [29, 70–77] and that negative metacognitive beliefs of uncontrollability and danger show the strongest and most reliable relationships with these symptoms [29].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yilmaz, A. E., Gençöz, T., & Wells, A.
Affiliations
Middle East Technical University (TR)
Venue
The Journal of General Psychology
Published
2014-12-24
Volume
142
Issue
1
Pages
23-33
ISSN
  • 0022-1309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-0888
OpenAlex
W1998809322
Cited by
31
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • The Journal of General Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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
metacognition, depressive symptoms, dysfunctional attitudes, rumination, anxiety comorbidity, university students, cognitive beliefs
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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