Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42193586›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Overvalued Ideas: Conceptual Analysis and Literature Review.

Jennifer Dork, Eugene Dimenstein, Lawrence Burns, Megan Demshuk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jennifer DorkDepartment of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USA.
Eugene DimensteinDepartment of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USA.
Lawrence BurnsDepartment of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0081-9350
Megan DemshukDepartment of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of the overvalued idea (OVI) has been debated since German psychiatrist Karl Wernicke coined the term in the late nineteenth century, describing it as an emotionally exaggerated yet psychologically comprehensible belief arising from normal cognitive processes that becomes central to an individual's mental life. Since that time, the construct has been variably reinterpreted through competing theoretical lenses, ranging from Kraepelin's biological nosology to contemporary cognitive-behavioral and multidimensional models. Despite its clinical relevance across disorders (e.g., anorexia nervosa, body dysmorphic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder), overvalued ideas remain inconsistently and insufficiently defined, having been alternately treated as attenuated delusions, markers of poor insight, or disorder-specific severity indicators-interpretations that have limited theoretical coherence, measurement precision, and clinical utility. This review traces the historical evolution of the overvalued idea, clarifies enduring theoretical misinterpretations, and proposes a comprehensive, practical definition. Integrating historical and contemporary perspectives, we define an overvalued idea as a psychologically intelligible, ego-syntonic belief held with disproportionate emotional significance that dominates cognition and behavior without meeting criteria for an obsession or a delusion. We further propose that overvalued ideation is best conceptualized as a transdiagnostic mechanism through which emotionally reinforced beliefs acquire pathological dominance across disorders, a formulation that both honors Wernicke's original insight and can be operationalized for future research, measurement, diagnosis, and treatment.

Indexed as

delusionego-syntonicityinsightobsessionovervalued ideas

Identifiers

PMID42193586
PMCPMC13203273

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.