Cited by 57Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMind wandering and attentionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Attentional control and suppressing negative thought intrusions in pathological worry

Open access
Fox, Elaine, Dutton, Kevin, Yates, Alan, Georgiou, George A., Mouchlianitis, Elias·2015·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Adaptive behavior relies on the ability to effectively and efficiently ignore irrelevant information, an important component of attentional control. The current research found that fundamental difficulties in ignoring irrelevant material are related to dispositional differences in trait propensity to worry, suggesting a core deficit in attentional control in high worriers. The degree of deficit in attentional control correlated with the degree of difficulty in suppressing negative thought intrusions in a worry assessment task. A cognitive training procedure utilizing a flanker task was used in an attempt to improve attentional control. Although the cognitive training was largely ineffective, improvements in attentional control were associated with improvements in the ability to suppress worry-related thought intrusions. Across two studies, the findings indicate that the inability to control worry-related negative thought intrusions is associated with a general deficiency in attentional 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 · 10.1177/2167702615575878

Cites

44 of 44 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Williams JMG Watts FN MacLeod CM Mathews A Cognitive psychology of emotional disorders 1997 Wiley Hoboken, NJ 2nd ed.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fox, E., Dutton, K., Yates, A., Georgiou, G. A., & Mouchlianitis, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Department of Psychology, University Campus Oldham
  • University of Roehampton (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Fox, Elaine
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2015-07
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
593-606
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W1853265543
Cited by
57
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (076701)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attentional control, pathological worry, trait worry, thought suppression, cognitive training, flanker task, selective attention

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