Is worry different from rumination? Yes, it is more predictive of psychopathology!

Jürgen Hoyer, Andrew T Gloster, Philipp Yorck Herzberg
{"title":"Is worry different from rumination? Yes, it is more predictive of psychopathology!","authors":"Jürgen Hoyer,&nbsp;Andrew T Gloster,&nbsp;Philipp Yorck Herzberg","doi":"10.3205/psm000062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although worry and rumination are everyday phenomena as well as common symptoms across numerous psychopathological disorders, the theoretical and clinical delineations of both concepts need more clarification. This study explored the degree of overlap between worry and rumination on the levels of standardized questionnaires and a priori lay concepts.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The subjective conceptualization of worry and of rumination of 221 undergraduate and graduate students was assessed with the semantic differential technique, together with the frequency and intensity with which they experienced worry and rumination (based on their lay concepts). Standardized self-report measures for worry, rumination, depression, and anxiety were also administered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Worry was viewed as more negative than rumination and was more predictive of anxiety as well as of depression than rumination, especially when the assessment was based on the subjective lay concepts. The different measures of worry and rumination were only moderately correlated with each other.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is concluded that the lay concepts worry and rumination and the hypothetical constructs worry and rumination should not be confused in personality and clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":88305,"journal":{"name":"Psycho-social medicine","volume":"6 ","pages":"Doc06"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/eb/97/PSM-06-06.PMC2778826.pdf","citationCount":"43","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycho-social medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/psm000062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

Abstract

Objective: Although worry and rumination are everyday phenomena as well as common symptoms across numerous psychopathological disorders, the theoretical and clinical delineations of both concepts need more clarification. This study explored the degree of overlap between worry and rumination on the levels of standardized questionnaires and a priori lay concepts.

Method: The subjective conceptualization of worry and of rumination of 221 undergraduate and graduate students was assessed with the semantic differential technique, together with the frequency and intensity with which they experienced worry and rumination (based on their lay concepts). Standardized self-report measures for worry, rumination, depression, and anxiety were also administered.

Results: Worry was viewed as more negative than rumination and was more predictive of anxiety as well as of depression than rumination, especially when the assessment was based on the subjective lay concepts. The different measures of worry and rumination were only moderately correlated with each other.

Conclusion: It is concluded that the lay concepts worry and rumination and the hypothetical constructs worry and rumination should not be confused in personality and clinical research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

忧虑和沉思有什么不同吗?是的,它更能预测精神病理!
目的:虽然焦虑和反刍是日常现象,也是许多精神病理障碍的常见症状,但这两个概念的理论和临床描述需要更多的澄清。本研究探讨了焦虑和反刍在标准化问卷和先验概念层面上的重叠程度。方法:采用语义差异法对221名本科生和研究生的主观忧虑和反刍概念进行评估,并对其焦虑和反刍的频率和强度进行评估(基于他们的外行概念)。还对担忧、沉思、抑郁和焦虑进行了标准化的自我报告测量。结果:忧虑被认为比反刍更消极,并且比反刍更能预测焦虑和抑郁,特别是当评估基于主观的lay概念时。焦虑和反刍的不同测量值之间只有适度的相关性。结论:在人格研究和临床研究中,不应混淆焦虑和反刍这两个外在概念和假设构念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书