Cited by 209Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Sticky Thoughts: Depression and Rumination Are Associated With Difficulties Manipulating Emotional Material in Working Memory

Open access
Joormann, Jutta, Levens, Sara M., Gotlib, Ian H.·2011·Psychological Science

Abstract

Cognitive inflexibility may play an important role in rumination, a risk factor for the onset and maintenance of depressive episodes. In the study reported here, we assessed participants’ ability to either reverse or maintain in working memory the order of three emotion or three neutral words. Differences (or sorting costs) between response latencies in backward trials, on which participants were asked to reverse the order of the words, and forward trials, on which participants were asked to remember the words in the order in which they were presented, were calculated. Compared with control participants, depressed participants had higher sorting costs, particularly when presented with negative words. It is important to note that rumination predicted sorting costs for negative words but not for positive or neutral words in the depressed group. These findings indicate that depression and rumination are associated with deficits in cognitive control.

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 · 10.1177/0956797611415539

Cites

29 of 29 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?

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
Joormann, J., Levens, S. M., & Gotlib, I. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2011-07-08
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
979-983
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2129907267
Cited by
209
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
12.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH59259, R01MH059259)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
rumination, cognitive inflexibility, depression, working memory, cognitive control, emotional words, negative words, response latency
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Cognition, Major Depressive Disorder, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reaction Time, Thinking, Case-Control Studies

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