Cited by 316Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Individual differences in trait rumination and the neural systems supporting cognitive reappraisal

Open access
RAY, R. D., OCHSNER, K. N., COOPER, J. C., ROBERTSON, E. R., GABRIELI, J. D. E., GROSS, J. J.·2005·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Cognitive reappraisal can alter emotional responses by changing one's interpretation of a situation's meaning. Functional neuroimaging has revealed that using cognitive reappraisal to increase or decrease affective responses involves left prefrontal activation and goal-appropriate increases or decreases in amygdala activation (Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, & Gabrieli, 2002; Ochsner, Ray, et al., 2004). The present study was designed to examine whether patterns of brain activation during reappraisal vary in relation to individual differences in trait rumination, which is the tendency to focus on negative aspects of one's self or negative interpretations of one's life. Individual differences in rumination correlated with increases in amygdala response when participants were increasing negative affect and with greater decreases in prefrontal regions implicated in self-focused thought when participants were decreasing negative affect. Thus, the propensity to ruminate may reflect altered recruitment of mechanisms that potentiate negative affect. These findings clarify relations between rumination and emotion regulation processes and may have important implications for mood and anxiety disorders.

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 · 10.3758/cabn.5.2.156

Cites

0 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?

  • Individual differences in rumination affect the degree to which women can use cognitive regulation to increase negative emotion using a variation on the same task used in the present study.

    “and individual differences in rumination have been shown to affect the degree to which women can use cognitive regulation to increase negative emotion using a variation on the same task used in the present study (Ray et al., 2005).”

    From Gender Differences in Emotion Regulation: An fMRI Study of Cognitive Reappraisal (2008) · cites this paper as Ray et al., 2005

    The METHOD Participants section reports that the study included only women. The section on reappraisal to increase negative affect reports that trait rumination predicted amygdala activation during increase trials, supporting a relationship with neural responses. But the discussion (A B; page unavailable) explicitly says rumination did not predict increases in self-reported negative affect, so the source does not establish a difference in how much negative emotion women could increase. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 14

  1. Anderson, A. K., Christoff, K., Panitz, D., De Rosa, E., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003). Neural correlates of the automatic processing of threat facial signals. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 5627-5633.
  2. Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive re- sponding. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724-731.
  3. Canli, T., Desmond, J. E., Zhao, Z., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Sex differences in the neural basis of emotional memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 10789-10794.
  4. Fossati, P., Hevenor, S. J., Graham, S. J., Grady, C., Keightley, M. L., Craik, F. [I. M.], & Mayberg, H. (2003). In search of the emo- tional self: An f MRI study using positive and negative emotional words. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1938-1945.
  5. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition: IX. Ruminative thoughts (pp. 1-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of pre- frontal cortical function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167- 202.
  8. Ochsner, K. N. (in press). Characterizing the functional architecture of affect regulation: Emerging answers and outstanding questions. In J. T. Cacioppo, P. S. Visser, & C. L. Pickett (Eds.), Social neuro- science: People thinking about thinking people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  9. Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An f MRI study of the cognitive regula- tion of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1215-1229.
  10. Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Thinking makes it so: A social- cognitive neuroscience approach to emotion regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Re- search, theory, and applications (pp. 229-255). New York: Guilford.
  11. Ochsner, K. N., Knierim, K., Ludlow, D. H., Hanelin, J., Ramachan- dran, T., Glover, G., & Mackey, S. (2004). Reflecting upon feel- ings: An f MRI study of neural systems supporting the attributions of emotion to self and other. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1748-1772.
  12. Ward, A., Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Can't quite commit: Rumination and uncertainty. Personality & So- cial Psychology Bulletin, 29, 96-107.
  13. Watkins, E., & Brown, R. G. (2002). Rumination and executive func- tion in depression: An experimental study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 72, 400-402.
  14. Whalen, P. J., Rauch, S. L., Etcoff, N. L., McInerney, S. C., Lee, M. B., & Jenike, M. A. (1998). Masked presentation of emotional fa- cial expressions modulate amygdala activity without explicit knowl- edge. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 411-418.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
RAY, R. D., OCHSNER, K. N., COOPER, J. C., ROBERTSON, E. R., GABRIELI, J. D. E., & GROSS, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2005-06-01
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
156-168
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2128918541
Cited by
316
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 25
FWCI
18.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH066957, MH 58147, R01MH066957)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
trait rumination, cognitive reappraisal, emotion regulation, individual differences, amygdala activation, left prefrontal cortex, negative affect, mood and anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Cues, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Individuality, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuropsychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Statistics as Topic, Thinking

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