Anyan Frederick, Morote Roxanna, Hjemdal Odin
Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 11;11:551503. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.551503. eCollection 2020.
Metacognitive theory provides strong foundation for hypothesizing relations between worry and rumination among subgroups of metacognitive beliefs. However, empirical exploration of prospective and reciprocal relations between worry and rumination are lacking. This study investigated the stability and relations between worry and rumination to better understand how they influence each other over time, and how different levels of metacognitive beliefs affect relations between (i) initial and future worry, and initial and future rumination, and (ii) the cross-lag relations between worry and rumination. Overall, 482 (Females = 63%) participants (Mean age = 26 years) participated in a two-wave data collection and completed the Metacognition Questionnaire (MCQ-30), the Ruminative Response Scale and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). A multigroup two-wave autoregressive cross-lagged model was estimated. Multigroup autoregression analyses revealed that independent of participants being in the high or low metacognition group, initial levels of worry predicted future levels of worry, as was the case for rumination. Multigroup cross-lagged analyses revealed that initial levels of worry did not predict future levels of rumination in both high and low levels of metacognitions. However, initial rumination predicted future levels of worry in the high metacognitions group, which was not the case for the low metacognitions group. Thus, high levels of metacognitions do not only strengthen the relation between both present and future worry, present and future rumination, but also present rumination with future worry. This finding may imply that those with rumination related conditions at present are more likely in the future to show both rumination and worry related conditions. Conversely, those with worry related conditions show future worry related conditions. These findings may have implications for a clinical sample regarding the high complexity of rumination conditions that may proceed with multifinality causal pathways especially for individuals with high levels of metacognitions. This complexity may be a possible explanation for the limited success in other traditional treatment of rumination related conditions and the relatively high relapse rates for such conditions in clinical samples.
元认知理论为假设元认知信念亚组中担忧与沉思之间的关系提供了坚实的基础。然而,对于担忧与沉思之间前瞻性和相互关系的实证探索却很缺乏。本研究调查了担忧与沉思之间的稳定性及关系,以更好地理解它们如何随时间相互影响,以及不同水平的元认知信念如何影响(i)初始担忧与未来担忧、初始沉思与未来沉思之间的关系,以及(ii)担忧与沉思之间的交叉滞后关系。总体而言,482名参与者(女性占63%,平均年龄 = 26岁)参与了两波数据收集,并完成了元认知问卷(MCQ - 30)、沉思反应量表和宾夕法尼亚州立大学担忧问卷(PSWQ)。估计了一个多组两波自回归交叉滞后模型。多组自回归分析表明,无论参与者处于高元认知组还是低元认知组,初始担忧水平都能预测未来的担忧水平,沉思情况也是如此。多组交叉滞后分析表明,在高元认知水平和低元认知水平下,初始担忧水平均不能预测未来的沉思水平。然而,在高元认知组中,初始沉思能预测未来的担忧水平,低元认知组则不然。因此,高水平的元认知不仅加强了当前与未来担忧、当前与未来沉思之间的关系,还加强了当前沉思与未来担忧之间的关系。这一发现可能意味着,目前有沉思相关状况的人未来更有可能同时出现沉思和担忧相关状况。相反,有担忧相关状况的人未来会出现与担忧相关的状况。这些发现可能对临床样本具有启示意义,因为沉思状况具有高度复杂性,可能存在多种因果路径,尤其是对于元认知水平高的个体。这种复杂性可能是其他传统的与沉思相关状况治疗效果有限以及临床样本中此类状况复发率相对较高的一个可能解释。