Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34593842›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

The think aloud paradigm reveals differences in the content, dynamics and conceptual scope of resting state thought in trait brooding.

Quentin Raffaelli, Caitlin Mills, Nadia-Anais de Stefano, Matthias R Mehl, Kate Chambers, Surya A Fitzgerald, Ramsey Wilcox, Kalina Christoff, Eric S Andrews, Matthew D Grilli and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Individual variability in neural representations of mind-wandering.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Quentin RaffaelliDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. quentinraffaelli@email.arizona.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4046-9818
Caitlin MillsDepartment of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4498-0496
Nadia-Anais de StefanoDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Matthias R MehlDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2698-5007
Kate ChambersDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Surya A FitzgeraldDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Ramsey WilcoxDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.
Kalina ChristoffDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2841-8647
Eric S AndrewsDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7186-5755
Matthew D GrilliDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0089-3243
Mary-Frances O'ConnorDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5961-6350
Jessica R Andrews-HannaDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, 1503 E University Blvd., Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. jandrewshanna@email.arizona.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2565-4759

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG019610 · NIA · SUN HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, GRACIELA · 2001 to 2020
$32.5M
Research Education ComponentP30AG072980 · NIA · BANNER HEALTH · PI HEATHER Allyson BIMONTE-NELSON · 2021 to 2026
$24.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG019610NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although central to well-being, functional and dysfunctional thoughts arise and unfold over time in ways that remain poorly understood. To shed light on these mechanisms, we adapted a "think aloud" paradigm to quantify the content and dynamics of individuals' thoughts at rest. Across two studies, external raters hand coded the content of each thought and computed dynamic metrics spanning duration, transition probabilities between affective states, and conceptual similarity over time. Study 1 highlighted the paradigm's high ecological validity and revealed a narrowing of conceptual scope following more negative content. Study 2 replicated Study 1's findings and examined individual difference predictors of trait brooding, a maladaptive form of rumination. Across individuals, increased trait brooding was linked to thoughts rated as more negative, past-oriented and self-focused. Longer negative and shorter positive thoughts were also apparent as brooding increased, as well as a tendency to shift away from positive conceptual states, and a stronger narrowing of conceptual scope following negative thoughts. Importantly, content and dynamics explained independent variance, accounting for a third of the variance in brooding. These results uncover a real-time cognitive signature of rumination and highlight the predictive and ecological validity of the think aloud paradigm applied to resting state cognition.

Indexed as

Rumination, CognitiveAdolescentAdultEmotionsFemaleHumansMalePersonalityPessimismYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34593842
PMCPMC8484343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.