Hoyer Jürgen, Gloster Andrew T, Herzberg Philipp Yorck
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University of Dresden, Germany.
Psychosoc Med. 2009 Nov 5;6:Doc06. doi: 10.3205/psm000062.
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.
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.
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.
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.
尽管担忧和沉思既是日常现象,也是众多精神病理障碍的常见症状,但这两个概念在理论和临床方面的界定仍需进一步明确。本研究在标准化问卷和先验的外行概念层面探讨了担忧和沉思之间的重叠程度。
采用语义差异技术评估了221名本科生和研究生对担忧和沉思的主观概念化,以及他们经历担忧和沉思的频率和强度(基于他们的外行概念)。还实施了关于担忧、沉思、抑郁和焦虑的标准化自我报告测量。
与沉思相比,担忧被视为更消极,并且比沉思更能预测焦虑和抑郁,特别是当评估基于主观的外行概念时。担忧和沉思的不同测量方法之间仅存在中度相关性。
得出的结论是,在外行概念中的担忧和沉思与假设结构中的担忧和沉思在人格和临床研究中不应混淆。