Studies // Cited work
Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought.
Level D Review doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163
What this study supports
Supports the claim that the consequences of repetitive thought depend on valence, context and level of construal, with abstract processing tending to be unconstructive. Narrative review; the advice built on it has not been trialled as such.
- Who was studied
- Not applicable: a review of constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought.
- Design
- Review
- Level of evidence
- Cross-sectional, observational, qualitative work and narrative reviews.
Claims that rest on it
Each claim states what the site asserts, at what strength, and with what caveat.
EmpiricalLevel DConfidence MODERATE
Repetitive thought is not uniformly harmful: abstract, evaluative forms tend to be unconstructive, while concrete, process-focused forms can support problem solving and recovery.
- Scope
- Reviewed studies of repetitive thought and laboratory studies of construal level.
- Caveat
- The specific advice to switch to concrete next steps has not been tested as a stand-alone intervention here.
Last reviewed · Review due · concrete-repetitive-thought
TheoreticalLevel DConfidence LOW
Unconstructive repetitive thought is easily mistaken for processing because it concerns the problem, uses abstract questions that feel deep, and has been modelled as a habit triggered by unresolved goals; processing tends to yield new information, a decision or an action, whereas rumination usually does not.
- Scope
- An interpretation of reviews and models of repetitive thought.
- Caveat
- The subjective sense of processing was not measured in the cited sources; the habit model is a proposal.
Last reviewed · Review due · rumination-feels-like-processing