Metacognitive and Metamemory Beliefs in the Development and Maintenance of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Open accessAbstract
Can metacognition increase trauma sufferers’ risk for developing and maintaining posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)? We assessed the role of a range of cognitive and metacognitive belief domains—including metamemory—on PTSD symptoms. Adult participants reported their existing meta/cognitions and lifetime exposure to trauma, then 12 weeks later, they reported meta/cognitions and PTSD symptoms in relation to new trauma exposure since the initial assessment. Participants with more PTSD symptoms held more problematic metacognitions than participants with fewer distress symptoms. Moreover, people who endorsed maladaptive metacognitions before trauma exposure were more likely to experience symptoms of PTSD after exposure. Metacognition predicted the maintenance of elevated PTSD symptoms over the 12-week delay. Our findings support the metacognitive model of PTSD and highlight the importance of metamemory, an understudied factor in PTSD research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Metacognitive beliefs and their relationship with anxiety and depression in physical illnesses: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as [76]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Takarangi, M. K. T., Smith, R. A., Strange, D., & Flowe, H. D.
- Affiliations
- Flinders University (AU)
- City University of New York (US)
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Takarangi, Melanie K. T.
- Venue
- Clinical Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-10-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 131-140
- ISSN
- 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
- 2167-7034
- OpenAlex
- W2524438957
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.lboro.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- post-traumatic stress disorder, metacognition, metamemory, metacognitive beliefs, trauma exposure, cognitive beliefs
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