Development and validation of experimental induction tasks for worry and rumination: A comparison of scripted and personalized approaches

Development and validation of experimental induction tasks for worry and rumination: A comparison of scripted and personalized approaches | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and validation of experimental induction tasks for worry and rumination: A comparison of scripted and personalized approaches Hanjoo Kim, Michelle Newman This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5139533/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Worry and rumination are two forms of repetitive negative thoughts. Prior studies have identified similarities and differences between these two states. For a more comprehensive understanding of these thought processes, researchers need reliable methods to induce them experimentally. Traditionally, researchers have used either scripted or personalized approaches to trigger worry and rumination, but it remains unclear which method is more effective. Additionally, the potential impact of preexisting disorders like generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or major depression (MDD) on these inductions is not well understood. This study aimed to compare scripted and personalized induction methods to identify which was more effective for eliciting worry and rumination, while also considering the potential influence of generalized anxiety and depression. Participants ( N = 355) included individuals with GAD, depression, or healthy controls. They were randomly assigned to either scripted or personalized induction tasks designed to induce worry or rumination. Findings revealed that personalized induction methods were consistently more effective than scripted methods for inducing both worry and rumination, regardless of participants' group characteristics. In addition to the general underperformance of scripted induction methods, the scripted rumination induction was notably less successful, failing to induce rumination to a greater extent than the scripted worry induction. Given these findings, personalized approaches are recommended for experimental studies that aim to compare worry and rumination. Limitations of the study and implications for future research are also discussed. Psychology repetitive negative thought worry rumination induction experiment Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Worry and rumination are two types of repetitive negative thoughts that lead to emotional distress. Worry refers to excessive and uncontrollable thoughts about potential threats (Borkovec et al., 1983 ). Rumination involves perseverative thinking about the causes and consequences of one’s problems and associated feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991 ). Unlike worry, which involves persistent thoughts on future events, rumination often involves past failures (Kingston et al., 2014 ; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008 ). Worry is considered a defining feature of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; Newman et al., 2013 ), whereas rumination has been recognized as a key characteristic of major depressive disorder (MDD; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008 ). Despite conceptual differences, there is considerable overlap between worry and rumination. They often occur interchangeably in individuals with GAD and MDD (Erickson et al., 2020 ; Watkins et al., 2005 ). Measures of worry and rumination were highly correlated in both clinical and non-clinical samples (Segerstrom et al., 2000 ; Szkodny & Newman, 2019 ). Some studies suggested that they shared common latent structures (Segerstrom et al., 2000 ; Topper et al., 2014 ). Additionally, worry and rumination were found not only in GAD and MDD but also in bipolar spectrum disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social anxiety disorder (Hearn et al., 2017 ; Mellings & Alden, 2000 ; Moulds et al., 2020 ; Sarisoy et al., 2014 ; Silveira Jr & Kauer-Sant'Anna, 2015; Tull et al., 2011 ). Thus, worry and rumination may represent transdiagnostic mechanisms for emotion dysregulation, cutting across various affective disorders. There is also a convergence between worry and rumination. Worry aligned with a cognitive bias away from threat, whereas rumination showed bias toward loss and failure (Hur et al., 2019 ). Worry was associated with lower heart rate variability, whereas rumination was less strongly linked to this measure (Aldao et al., 2013 ). Worry was often related to appraisal of low coping effectiveness, whereas rumination led to disengagement from problem-solving (Hong, 2007 ). These findings underscore the need for more research to clarify shared and unique aspects of worry and rumination. Understanding the intricacies of worry and rumination is key to creating more targeted interventions. Laboratory studies offer controlled environments, allowing researchers to isolate specific variables and examine their causal impact on these cognitive patterns. Researchers often use methods to induce worry and rumination to compare their effects on various outcomes. However, a major challenge in comparing worry and rumination has been the inconsistency of induction methods, which hampers meaningful side-by-side analysis. Worry induction typically relies on “personalized” scenarios, where participants are prompted to think about potential worrisome events in their lives. This approach, developed by Borkovec and Inz ( 1990 ) is widely used in experimental studies on worry (e.g., Behar et al., 2005 ; Fisher & Newman, 2013 ; Llera & Newman, 2010 , 2014 , 2020 ; Oathes et al., 2008 ; Zainal & Newman, 2018 ). At the same time, traditional rumination inductions are typically "scripted," involving participants reading statements prepared by researchers. This method was introduced by Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow ( 1993 ) and is commonly used in studies on rumination (e.g., LeMoult & Joormann, 2014 ; Watkins & Brown, 2002 ; Whitmer & Gotlib, 2012 ). Experimental studies comparing worry and rumination generally used one of these two approaches: some adopted personalized inductions to elicit worry and rumination (e.g., Jamil & Llera, 2021 ; Kim & Newman, 2022 ; Kim & Newman, 2023 ; McLaughlin et al., 2007 ), whereas others relied on scripted inductions (e.g., Capobianco et al., 2018 ; Lewis et al., 2019 ). Yet, the rationale for selecting one method over the other has not been thoroughly examined. There is no consensus on which is more effective. Additionally, it remains unclear if observed differences in worry and rumination are influenced by pre-existing group characteristics, such as anxiety or depression. To address these uncertainties, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of personalized and scripted induction methods, while also considering the potential impact of group characteristics. We sought to answer the following questions: 1. Which induction method, between scripted and personalized, was more effective at inducing the targeted response? 2. Did the induction methods produce stronger responses when they matched the intended emotion? 3. To what extent did group characteristics influence the effects of each induction method? Method Participants Participants were recruited from a university subject pool, with a total of 356 individuals. Due to a computer error during the experiment, one participant's data was excluded, resulting in a final sample of 355, including 118 with GAD (and low depression), 113 with depression (and low GAD), and 124 healthy controls (HC). Participants were assigned to the GAD group if they met the full diagnostic criteria on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV (GAD-Q-IV; Newman et al., 2002 ) and scored 13 or less on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996 ). They were included in the depression group if they scored 20 or above on the BDI-II and did not meet the diagnostic criteria on the GAD-Q-IV. Participants were categorized as HC if they neither met the diagnostic criteria on the GAD-Q-IV nor scored 14 or above on the BDI-II. Participants were randomly assigned to scripted (either scripted worry or scripted rumination) or personalized inductions (either personalized worry or personalized rumination), with stratification by group (GAD, depression, and HC) [1] . The sample was predominantly female (282 women, 79.4% vs. 73 men, 20.6%). The racial composition included 267 White (75.2%), 37 Asian (10.4%), 22 Hispanic (6.2%), 18 Black or African-American (5.1%), and 11 from other racial backgrounds (3.1%). The mean age was 18.23 ( SD = 2.83). The average score for the GAD-Q-IV (using continuous scoring) was 4.88 ( SD = 3.88), whereas the average BDI-II score was 12.35 ( SD = 10.42). Further details on participant characteristics can be found in Table 1 . Table 1 Demographic characteristics Variable Total ( N = 355) GAD ( n = 118) Depression ( n = 113) HC ( n = 124) Statistics Categorical variables χ² p V Gender, n (%) 2.16 .340 .08 Women 282 (79.4) 99 (83.9) 87 (77.0) 96 (77.4) Men 73 (20.6) 19 (16.1) 26 (23.0) 28 (22.6) Race, n (%) 9.08 .336 .11 White 267 (75.2) 93 (75.0) 81 (65.3) 93 (75.0) Asian 37 (10.4) 13 (10.5) 13 (10.5) 11 (8.9) Hispanic 22 (6.2) 6 (4.8) 9 (7.3) 7 (5.6) African-American 18 (5.1) 1 (0.8) 8 (6.5) 9 (7.3) Others 11 (3.1) 5 (4.0) 2 (1.6) 4 (3.2) Continuous variables F P 𝜂 2 Age, M ( SD ) 18.23 (2.83) 18.30 (3.21) 18.34 (2.85) 18.06 (2.42) .377 .687 .00 GAD-Q-IV, M ( SD ) 4.88 (3.88) 9.10 (1.58) 4.40 (3.10) 1.30 (1.35) 846.47 < .001 .89 BDI-2, M ( SD ) 12.35 (10.42) 8.92 (2.93) 25.75 (6.19) 3.39 (3.50) 570.8 < .001 .84 Note . GAD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; HC, Healthy Controls; GAD-Q-IV, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV-Continuous Score; BDI-2, Beck Depression Inventory-2 Procedure This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the authors' affiliated institution. Prior to the experiment, participants provided written consent, and the concepts of worry and rumination were explained to them. Following Borkovec et al. ( 1983 ) and Nolen-Hoeksema ( 1991 ), worry was defined as “a chain of uncontrollable thoughts and images about things that might happen in the future,” whereas rumination was described as “passively and repetitively thinking about possible causes, implications, and consequences of stressful events and negative feelings as opposed to its solutions.” The experiment began with a 5-minute resting baseline to help participants acclimate to the setting. They then completed the assigned perseverative thought induction task. In the two personalized induction groups, they engaged either with their most worrisome or ruminative topics as vividly as possible for two minutes. In the two scripted induction groups, participants read a list of either worrisome or ruminative topics for eight minutes at their own pace. After the baseline and induction phase, participants rated their levels of worry and rumination. They received research credits for participating. All procedures were implemented using E-Prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools inc., 2002). Instruments Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV (Newman et al., 2002 ) The GAD-Q-IV is a nine-item self-report measure assessing GAD symptoms following diagnostic criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ). Diagnoses can be established either through a dimensional cutoff or by determining if individuals meet full diagnostic criteria. In this study, we opted for criterion scoring based on a prior study (Moore et al., 2014 ) demonstrating that it provided higher sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%) than dimensional scoring. The internal consistency of the current sample was great (Cronbach’s α = .82) [2] . Beck Depression Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, ) The BDI-II is a 21-item self-report questionnaire that assesses major depressive disorder symptoms. It demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996 ; Steer et al., 1999 ) and high retest reliability (Beck et al., 1988 ). A cutoff score of 18 has high sensitivity (94%) and specificity (92%) (Arnau et al., 2001 ). We used a more rigorous cutoff − 20 or above for moderate to severe depression, and 13 or less for minimal depression, as suggested by the original study (Beck, Steer, Ball, et al., 1996) - to screen participants. Internal consistency in our sample was strong (Cronbach’s α = .92). Subjective Emotion Scales During both the resting baseline and induction phases, participants were asked to rate their levels of worry and rumination using a 9-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 0, indicating “not at all”, to 8, indicating “extremely”. Scripted Induction Methods For script-based induction of worry, we presented items from the Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ; Tallis et al., 1994 ). The WDQ comprises 25 items selected for their high intensity and frequency from the General Worry Questionnaire (GWQ; Tallis et al., 1992 ). The WDQ covers a wide range of worry-provoking topics, such as relationships, an uncertain future, work-related concerns, and financial issues. Following previous studies (e.g., Freeman et al., 2013 ; Ikani et al., 2022 ), we instructed participants to read through the worry-inducing topics at their own pace for eight minutes. For the scripted rumination induction, we used the method developed by Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow ( 1993 ), consisting of 45 statements that encourage reflection on oneself, along with the causes and consequences of current feelings and situations. Participants read these statements at their own pace for eight minutes. Additional information is available in Method S1. Personalized Induction Methods For personalized worry and rumination inductions, we adapted Borkovec and Inz ( 1990 )’s induction method. Before the experiment, participants wrote five scenarios that triggered the most intense worry or rumination for them. They then practiced thinking about each scenario for one minute and rated their level of worry and rumination on a 9-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 8 (extremely). To ensure the scenarios were suitable for the experiment, we pre-screened them using a set of standards. To qualify for emotion manipulation, the target emotion had to score above 4 on the scale and at least 3 points higher than the non-target emotions. Additionally, the temporal orientation had to align with the induction type: for worry, it needed to be future-oriented (above 4), and for rumination, past-oriented (below 4). During the induction period, participants engaged with their most intense worry or rumination scenario for two minutes. Further details are provided in Method S2. Analytic plan All analyses were conducted using RStudio version 2023.12.0 + 369 (RStudio Team, 2023 ). We computed descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics and GAD-Q-IV and BDI-II scores. To assess differences across groups and experimental conditions, we used ANOVA and chi-square tests, followed by pairwise comparisons when results were significant. To compare different induction methods (scripted vs. personalized) and types (worry induction vs. rumination induction), we used random-intercept linear mixed models. These models included group, induction (either method or type), time (resting baseline vs. induction phase), their interactions, and demographic covariates (age, gender, and race). When a significant two-way interaction between induction and time, or a three-way interaction among induction, time, and group was found, we conducted simple slope analyses to examine the significance of the slopes and the differences between them. Results Descriptive statistics As expected, the GAD group had higher GAD-Q-IV scores than both the depression and HC groups, whereas the depression group had higher scores than HC (with all p -values < .001). The depression group had higher BDI-II scores than the GAD group and HC, whereas the GAD group scored higher than HC. Age did not vary significantly across groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in gender distribution or racial identity. Group difference statistics are detailed in Table 1 . We also tested for differences across experimental conditions. Neither age, F (3, 170.75) = 2.22, p = .087, 𝜂 2 = .04, nor gender, χ²(3) = 1.16, p = .762, V = .06, nor racial identity, χ²(12) = 15.42, p = .219, V = .12 showed significant differences across conditions. There were also no significant differences in continuous GAD-Q-IV scores, F (3, 194.85) = 1.61, p = .189, 𝜂 2 = .02, and BDI-II scores, F (3, 194.36) = .37, p = .774, 𝜂 2 = .01. Thus, participant assignment to experimental conditions was balanced. Comparison of scripted vs. personalized worry induction method in the induction of worry For the worry induction, there was a significant two-way interaction between induction method and time, F (1, 176.47) = 22.06, p < .001, 𝜂 2 = .11. Both the scripted, B = 2.58, SE = .40, p < .001, d = 1.40 and personalized worry induction, B = 4.73, SE = .29, df = 87.00, d = 3.44 increased worry from the resting baseline. The comparison of slopes showed that the personalized worry induction increased worry more than the scripted worry induction, t (175) = -4.34, p < .001, d = .66. Figure 1 a illustrates the two-way interaction and Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for worry scores at both the resting baseline and the induction phase. The three-way interaction between worry induction method, time, and group was not significant, F (1, 176.47) = 2.48, p = .087, 𝜂 2 = .03. Table 2 Means and standard deviations for worry and rumination scores from resting baseline to induction phase by induction method (scripted vs. personalized) and induction type (worry induction vs. rumination induction) Variables Scripted method Personalized method Worry induction Rumination induction Worry induction Rumination induction Baseline Induction Baseline Induction Baseline Induction Baseline Induction Worry score, M ( SD ) 1.03 (1.50) 3.97 (2.10) 1.07 (1.51) 2.12 (1.94) .79 (1.26) 5.14 (1.43) 1.26 (1.70) 3.03 (2.11) Rumination score, M ( SD ) .90 (1.37) 2.84 (2.28) 1.17 (1.63) 2.69 (2.38) .70 (1.20) 2.94 (2.33) 1.33 (1.85) 5.72 (1.81) Note. Worry and rumination scores were rated on the 9-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 8. Comparison of scripted vs. personalized rumination induction method in the induction of rumination During the rumination induction, a significant two-way interaction between the induction method and time was observed, F (1, 174.20) = 73.02, p < .001, 𝜂 2 = .30. Both scripted, B = .97, SE = .34, p = .01, d = .62 and personalized rumination inductions, B = 4.83, SE = .46, p < .001, d = 2.25 led to significant increases in rumination. However, the personalized rumination induction increased rumination more than the scripted rumination induction, t (172) = -6.75, p < .001, d = 1.03. The two-way interaction effect is illustrated in Fig. 1 b, and the means and standard deviations for rumination scores at the resting baseline and during the induction phase are provided in Table 2 . The three-way interaction between induction method, time, and group was not significant, F (1, 174.20) = 2.37, p = .096, 𝜂 2 = .03. Comparison of scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction in the induction of worry We observed a significant two-way interaction between scripted induction type (worry vs. rumination) and time on worry, F (1, 169.00) = 40.44, p < .001, 𝜂 2 = .19. Both the scripted worry induction, B = 2.58, SE = .40, p < .001, d = 1.40 and scripted rumination induction, B = .60, SE = .30, p = .047, d = .44 led to significant increases in worry. However, the scripted worry induction increased worry more than did the scripted rumination induction, t (171) = 3.99, p < .001, d = .61. Figure 2 a illustrates the two-way interaction effect and Table 2 demonstrates the means and standard deviations for worry scores at both resting baseline and the induction phase. The three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not observed, F (1, 169.00) = 2.78, p = .065, 𝜂 2 = .03. Comparison of scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction in the induction of rumination The two-way interaction between scripted induction type and time indicated no significant difference between the worry script and rumination script on increased rumination, F (1, 169.00) = 2.00, p = .159, 𝜂 2 = .01. A significant increase in rumination was observed in both the scripted worry induction, B = 1.48, SE = .36, p < .001, d = .88, and the scripted rumination induction, B = .97, SE = .34, p = .006, d = .62. Figure 2 b illustrates the non-significant two-way interaction between induction type and time and Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for rumination scores at resting baseline and during the induction phase. Additionally, the three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not significant, F (1, 169.00) = 1.29, p = .277, 𝜂 2 = .02. Comparison of personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction in the induction of worry During the personalized induction, we observed a significant two-way interaction between induction type (worry vs. rumination) and time, F (1, 174.00) = 63.93, p < .001, 𝜂 2 = .27, on increased worry. Both the personalized worry induction, B = 4.73, SE = .29, p < .001, d = 3.44 and the personalized rumination induction, B = 2.13, SE = .45, p < .001, d = 1.01 significantly increased worry from the resting baseline. However, the comparison of slopes indicated that the personalized worry induction increased worry more than the personalized rumination induction, t (176) = 4.79, p < .001, d = .72. The two-way interaction between induction type and time is illustrated in Fig. 3 a, and means and standard deviations for worry scores at both resting baseline and during the induction phase are provided in Table 2 . In this model, the three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not significant, F (1, 174.00) = .53, p = .587, 𝜂 2 = .01. Comparison of personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction in the induction of rumination In the induction of rumination, there was a significant two-way interaction between induction type and time, F (1, 174.00) = 35.75, p < .001, 𝜂 2 = .17. Both the personalized worry induction, B = 1.91, SE = .38, p < .001, d = 1.07 and personalized rumination induction, B = 4.83, SE = .46, p < .001, d = 2.25 significantly increased rumination from the resting baseline. However, the slope comparison showed that the personalized rumination induction increased rumination more than the personalized worry induction, t (176) = -4.89, p < .001, d = .74. The two-way interaction between induction type and time is illustrated in Fig. 3 b and the means and standard deviations for rumination scores at both the resting baseline and during the induction phase are displayed in Table 2 . On the other hand, the three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not observed, F (1, 174.00) = 1.84, p = .161, 𝜂 2 = .02. Discussion This study compared the effectiveness of personalized and scripted methods for inducing worry and rumination, an area that has not been thoroughly explored. We also examined whether these methods were more effective when aligned with the targeted repetitive thought process and whether their effects varied by diagnostic group. Our findings showed that the personalized method consistently outperformed the scripted method in eliciting the targeted repetitive thought process. These results held true regardless of group characteristics. Furthermore, the personalized induction led to more pronounced effects when the induction type matched the target repetitive thought process. Specifically, worry was induced more by the personalized worry induction than by personalized rumination induction, whereas rumination was evoked more by the personalized rumination induction than by the personalized worry induction, providing support for the validity of the personalized induction methods. Beyond the overall underperformance of the scripted method, the scripted rumination induction, in particular, presented specific issues. Although the scripted worry induction increased worry more than the scripted rumination induction, the scripted rumination induction did not increase rumination more than did the scripted worry induction. Thus the scripted rumination induction was no more effective at inducing rumination than the scripted worry induction. This discrepancy may stem from the original objectives behind the development of the scripted rumination induction method. Unlike the worry induction developed by Borkovec and Inz ( 1990 ), and designed to elicit worry, Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow ( 1993 )’s rumination induction was originally designed to test the effects of reflective thought on depressive mood among individuals with depression. As a result, the content of the induction task was intentionally made to represent a more neutral form of mentation rather than explicitly negative themes. Although this approach helps identify thought patterns unique to those with depression, it may explain its reduced efficacy in inducing “depressive rumination,” which involves more overtly negative thinking (Conway et al., 2000 ; Papageorgiou & Wells, 2004 ; Robinson & Alloy, 2003 ). Experimental studies wherein worry or rumination are induced, are important because they allow researchers to determine the causal impact of these repetitive thought processes. As noted above, worry and rumination have been implicated as transdiagnostic and are potentially causally related to the maintenance of many psychological disorders (Erickson et al., 2020 ). Multiple experimental studies have been conducted to confirm the similar or different effects of these thought processes on subjective and objective indices of emotion (e.g., Ottaviani et al., 2016 ). However, the current study suggests that the specific induction methods used may lead to significantly different outcomes. In particular, we highly recommend using the personalized induction method, regardless of the thought process targeted as this method was more effective at inducing the targeted thought process. Future studies might also examine the induction of angry rumination and or obsessive thoughts. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Although this study distinguished between GAD and depression to assess their separate effects on worry and rumination inductions, it is not uncommon for these conditions to coexist in the same individual. Including samples with comorbid GAD and depression could reveal whether having both disorders results in greater worry and rumination induction compared to having either condition alone. Furthermore, whereas we applied strict standards for participant screening, this study focused on a college sample, resulting in a relatively homogeneous group in terms of age and education. To enhance the generalizability of our findings, future research should aim to replicate this study with treatment-seeking populations from more diverse backgrounds. Our study demonstrated that personalized induction methods were more effective and appropriate for inducing worry and depressive rumination. We hope these findings will ease the burden on researchers in choosing a valid induction method and contribute to advancing knowledge and practices to help individuals grapple with repetitive negative thoughts. Declarations CRediT authorship contribution statement Hanjoo Kim: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Visualization, and Writing - Original Draft. Michelle G. Newman: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, and Writing – Review & Editing Funding This work was supported in part by funding from the Bruce V. Moore Graduate Fellowship in Psychology from the Department of Psychology at Penn State and the National Institute of Mental Health, United States Research Grant MH115128. Acknowledgment We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the undergraduate research assistants at the Laboratory for Anxiety & Depression Research for their invaluable support with data collection and coding. Declaration of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Aldao, A., Mennin, D. S., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2013). Differentiating worry and rumination: Evidence from heart rate variability during spontaneous regulation. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 37 (3), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9485-0 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; 5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Arnau, R. C., Meagher, M. W., Norris, M. P., & Bramson, R. (2001). Psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with primary care medical patients. Health Psychology , 20 (2), 112-119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.20.2.112 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. F. (1996). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories-IA and-II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment , 67 (3), 588-597. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory-II. APA PsychTests . https://doi.org/10.1037/t00742-000 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review , 8 (1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5 Behar, E., Zuellig, A. R., & Borkovec, T. D. (2005). Thought and imaginal activity during worry and trauma recall. Behavior Therapy , 36 (2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80064-4 Borkovec, T. D., & Inz, J. (1990). The nature of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: A predominance of thought activity. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 28 (2), 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90027-G Borkovec, T. D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & DePree, J. A. (1983). Preliminary exploration of worry: Some characteristics and processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 21 (1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(83)90121-3 Capobianco, L., Morris, J. A., & Wells, A. (2018). Worry and rumination: Do they prolong physiological and affective recovery from stress? Anxiety Stress and Coping , 31 (3), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1438723 Conway, M., Csank, P. A., Holm, S. L., & Blake, C. K. (2000). On assessing individual differences in rumination on sadness. Journal of Personality Assessment , 75 (3), 404-425. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7503_04 Erickson, T. M., Newman, M. G., & Tingey, J. L. (2020). Worry and Rumination. In J. S. Abramowitz & S. M. Blakey (Eds.), Clinical handbook of fear and anxiety: Maintenance processes and treatment mechanisms (pp. 133-151). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000150-008 Fisher, A. J., & Newman, M. G. (2013). Heart rate and autonomic response to stress after experimental induction of worry versus relaxation in healthy, high-worry, and generalized anxiety disorder individuals. Biological Psychology , 93 (1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.012 Freeman, D., Startup, H., Dunn, G., Černis, E., Wingham, G., Pugh, K., Cordwell, J., & Kingdon, D. (2013). The interaction of affective with psychotic processes: a test of the effects of worrying on working memory, jumping to conclusions, and anomalies of experience in patients with persecutory delusions. Journal of psychiatric research , 47 (12), 1837-1842. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.06.016 Hearn, C. S., Donovan, C. L., Spence, S. H., & March, S. (2017). A worrying trend in Social Anxiety: To what degree are worry and its cognitive factors associated with youth Social Anxiety Disorder? Journal of Affective Disorders , 208 , 33-40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.052 Hong, R. Y. (2007). Worry and rumination: Differential associations with anxious and depressive symptoms and coping behavior. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 45 (2), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.006 Hur, J., Gaul, K., & Berenbaum, H. (2019). Different patterns of attention bias in worry and rumination. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 43 (4), 713-725. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-09993-4 Ikani, N., Radix, A. K., Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2022). Changing metacognitive appraisal bias in high-worriers through reappraisal training. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 46 (4), 852-863. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-022-10297-x Jamil, N., & Llera, S. J. (2021). A transdiagnostic application of the contrast-avoidance model: The effects of worry and rumination in a personal-failure paradigm. Clinical Psychological Science , 9 (5), 836-849. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702621991797 Kim, H., & Newman, M. G. (2022). Avoidance of a negative emotional contrast from worry and rumination: An application of the contrast avoidance model. Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy , 32 (1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbct.2021.12.007 Kim, H., & Newman, M. G. (2023). Worry and rumination enhance positive emotional contrast based on the framework of the Contrast Avoidance Model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 102671. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102671 Kingston, R. E., Watkins, E. R., & Nolen–Hoeksema, S. (2014). Investigating functional properties of depressive rumination: Insight and avoidance. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology , 5 (3), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.038013 LeMoult, J., & Joormann, J. (2014). Depressive rumination alters cortisol decline in Major Depressive Disorder. Biological Psychology , 100 , 50-55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.05.001 Lewis, E. J., Blanco, I., Raila, H., & Joormann, J. (2019). Does repetitive negative thinking affect attention? Differential effects of worry and rumination on attention to emotional stimuli. Emotion , 19 (8), 1450-1462. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000535 Llera, S. J., & Newman, M. G. (2010). Effects of worry on physiological and subjective reactivity to emotional stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder and nonanxious control participants. Emotion , 10 (5), 640-650. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019351 Llera, S. J., & Newman, M. G. (2014). Rethinking the role of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Evidence supporting a model of Emotional Contrast Avoidance. Behavior Therapy , 45 (3), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2013.12.011 Llera, S. J., & Newman, M. G. (2020). Worry impairs the problem-solving process: Results from an experimental study. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 135 , 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103759 McLaughlin, K. A., Borkovec, T. D., & Sibrava, N. J. (2007). The effects of worry and rumination on affect states and cognitive activity [JOUR]. Behavior Therapy , 38 (1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.03.003 Mellings, T. M., & Alden, L. E. (2000). Cognitive processes in social anxiety: The effects of self-focus, rumination and anticipatory processing. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 38 (3), 243-257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00040-6 Moore, M. T., Anderson, N. L., Barnes, J. M., Haigh, E. A. P., & Fresco, D. M. (2014). Using the GAD-Q-IV to identify generalized anxiety disorder in psychiatric treatment seeking and primary care medical samples [Article]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 28 (1), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.10.009 Moulds, M. L., Bisby, M. A., Wild, J., & Bryant, R. A. (2020). Rumination in posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review , 82 , 101910. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101910 Newman, M. G., Llera, S. J., Erickson, T. M., Przeworski, A., & Castonguay, L. G. (2013). Worry and generalized anxiety disorder: A review and theoretical synthesis of research on nature, etiology, and treatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 9 (1), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185544 Newman, M. G., Zuellig, A. R., Kachin, K. E., Constantino, M. J., Przeworski, A., Erickson, T., & Cashman-McGrath, L. (2002). Preliminary reliability and validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV: A revised self-report diagnostic measure of generalized anxiety disorder. Behavior Therapy , 33 (2), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80026-0 Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 100 (4), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.569 Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of rumination and distraction on naturally occurring depressed mood. Cognition and Emotion , 7 (6), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409206 Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination [Peer Reviewed]. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 3 (5), 400-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x Oathes, D. J., Ray, W. J., Yamasaki, A. S., Borkovec, T. D., Castonguay, L. G., Newman, M. G., & Nitschke, J. (2008). Worry, generalized anxiety disorder, and emotion: Evidence from the EEG gamma band [Peer Reviewed]. Biological Psychology , 79 (2), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.005 Ottaviani, C., Thayer, J. F., Verkuil, B., Lonigro, A., Medea, B., Couyoumdjian, A., & Brosschot, J. F. (2016). Physiological concomitants of perseverative cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis [doi:10.1037/bul0000036]. Psychological Bulletin , 142 (3), 231-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000036 Papageorgiou, C., & Wells, A. (Eds.). (2004). Depressive rumination: Nature, theory and treatment . Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713853. Psychology Software Tools inc. (2002). E-Prime 2.0. Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Robinson, M. S., & Alloy, L. B. (2003). Negative cognitive styles and stress-reactive rumination interact to predict depression: A prospective study. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 27 (3), 275-291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023914416469 RStudio Team. (2023). RStudio: Integrated Development for R . In (Version 2023.12.0+369) RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/ Sarisoy, G., Pazvantoğlu, O., Özturan, D. D., Ay, N. D., Yilman, T., Mor, S., Korkmaz, I. Z., Kaçar, Ö. F., & Gümüş, K. (2014). Metacognitive beliefs in unipolar and bipolar depression: A comparative study. Nordic journal of psychiatry , 68 (4), 275-281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2013.814710 Segerstrom, S. C., Tsao, J. C. I., Alden, L. E., & Craske, M. G. (2000). Worry and rumination: Repetitive thought as a concomitant and predictor of negative mood. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 24 (6), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005587311498 Silveira Jr, É. d. M., & Kauer-Sant'Anna, M. (2015). Rumination in bipolar disorder: A systematic review. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry , 37 (3), 256-263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2014-1556 Steer, R. A., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. F. (1999). Dimensions of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in clinically depressed outpatients. Journal of clinical psychology , 55 (1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199901)55:13.0.CO;2-A Szkodny, L. E., & Newman, M. G. (2019). Delineating characteristics of maladaptive repetitive thought: Development and preliminary validation of the Perseverative Cognitions Questionnaire. Assessment , 26 (6), 1084-1104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117698753 Tallis, F., Davey, G. C. L., & Bond, A. (1994). The Worry Domains Questionnaire. In G. C. L. Davey & F. Tallis (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment. (pp. 285-297). John Wiley & Sons. Tallis, F., Eysenck, M. W., & Mathews, A. (1992). A questionnaire for the measurement of nonpathological worry. Personality and Individual Differences , 13 (2), 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90038-Q Topper, M., Molenaar, D., Emmelkamp, P. M., & Ehring, T. (2014). Are rumination and worry two sides of the same coin? A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology , 5 (3), 363-381. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.038813 Tull, M. T., Hahn, K. S., Evans, S. D., Salters-Pedneault, K., & Gratz, K. L. (2011). Examining the role of emotional avoidance in the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity and worry. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy , 40 (1), 5-14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2010.515187 Watkins, E., & Brown, R. (2002). Rumination and executive function in depression: An experimental study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry , 72 (3), 400-402. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.72.3.400 Watkins, E., Moulds, M., & Mackintosh, B. (2005). Comparisons between rumination and worry in a non-clinical population. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 43 (12), 1577-1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.11.008 Whitmer, A. J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2012). Switching and backward inhibition in major depressive disorder: the role of rumination. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 (3), 570. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027474 Zainal, N. H., & Newman, M. G. (2018). Worry amplifies theory-of-mind reasoning for negatively valenced social stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders , 227 , 824-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.084 Footnotes The sample sizes for the 2×2×3 between-subjects design are provided in Table S1. Only continuous items of the GAD-Q-IV were used to calculate Cronbach’s α. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files 10.SupplementaryMaterialsHanjooKim.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5139533","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":358093470,"identity":"8d70a52e-457b-4fa6-a3fa-21357b71b104","order_by":0,"name":"Hanjoo Kim","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6891-2733","institution":"University of Michigan","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hanjoo","middleName":"","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":358093471,"identity":"7955b3b9-fb90-4904-aaca-66815058f744","order_by":1,"name":"Michelle Newman","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0873-1409","institution":"Pennsylvania State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michelle","middleName":"","lastName":"Newman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-09-23 16:49:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5139533/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5139533/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":65309189,"identity":"5db3d81a-119d-4871-a186-e51db5bb8859","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-26 01:49:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":59118,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction plot illustrating the effects of different induction methods (scripted vs. personalized) on target emotions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Fig. 1a depicts the impact of scripted vs. personalized worry inductions on levels of worry, whereas Fig. 1b illustrates the effects of scripted vs. personalized rumination inductions on levels of rumination.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5139533/v1/dc57d1802ca1710f456c4098.png"},{"id":65310272,"identity":"63a9d69c-c834-498b-b4c7-d9d563ec5737","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-26 02:05:43","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction plot illustrating the effects of different scripted induction conditions (scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction) on levels of worry and rumination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Fig. 2a depicts the impact of scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction on levels of worry, whereas Fig. 2b illustrates the effects of scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction on levels of rumination.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5139533/v1/7e9ba0f387cf0dcdeca9b11a.png"},{"id":65309188,"identity":"bd672fb1-269f-44ee-ab8e-cf0a6ce2e174","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-26 01:49:43","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62447,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction plot illustrating the effects of different personalized induction conditions (personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction) on levels of worry and rumination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Fig. 3a depicts the impact of personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction on levels of worry, whereas Fig. 3b illustrates the effects of personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction on levels of rumination.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5139533/v1/de6fa00a98f19b66800f3917.png"},{"id":65310797,"identity":"6b7ebba8-6e47-49d7-94cc-5470cf42f73c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-26 02:13:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1073407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5139533/v1/7964caf2-36cd-4d9b-90f3-5015c81efa36.pdf"},{"id":65309965,"identity":"b8aeffba-0366-41f5-8a77-852797835da9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-26 01:57:43","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":32385,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"10.SupplementaryMaterialsHanjooKim.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5139533/v1/1899a251cbd3d1448e01802a.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eDevelopment and validation of experimental induction tasks for worry and rumination: A comparison of scripted and personalized approaches\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWorry and rumination are two types of repetitive negative thoughts that lead to emotional distress. Worry refers to excessive and uncontrollable thoughts about potential threats (Borkovec et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). Rumination involves perseverative thinking about the causes and consequences of one\u0026rsquo;s problems and associated feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike worry, which involves persistent thoughts on future events, rumination often involves past failures (Kingston et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Worry is considered a defining feature of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; Newman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), whereas rumination has been recognized as a key characteristic of major depressive disorder (MDD; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite conceptual differences, there is considerable overlap between worry and rumination. They often occur interchangeably in individuals with GAD and MDD (Erickson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Watkins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Measures of worry and rumination were highly correlated in both clinical and non-clinical samples (Segerstrom et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Szkodny \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Some studies suggested that they shared common latent structures (Segerstrom et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Topper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, worry and rumination were found not only in GAD and MDD but also in bipolar spectrum disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social anxiety disorder (Hearn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mellings \u0026amp; Alden, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Moulds et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sarisoy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Silveira Jr \u0026amp; Kauer-Sant'Anna, 2015; Tull et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, worry and rumination may represent transdiagnostic mechanisms for emotion dysregulation, cutting across various affective disorders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is also a convergence between worry and rumination. Worry aligned with a cognitive bias away from threat, whereas rumination showed bias toward loss and failure (Hur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Worry was associated with lower heart rate variability, whereas rumination was less strongly linked to this measure (Aldao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Worry was often related to appraisal of low coping effectiveness, whereas rumination led to disengagement from problem-solving (Hong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). These findings underscore the need for more research to clarify shared and unique aspects of worry and rumination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the intricacies of worry and rumination is key to creating more targeted interventions. Laboratory studies offer controlled environments, allowing researchers to isolate specific variables and examine their causal impact on these cognitive patterns. Researchers often use methods to induce worry and rumination to compare their effects on various outcomes. However, a major challenge in comparing worry and rumination has been the inconsistency of induction methods, which hampers meaningful side-by-side analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorry induction typically relies on \u0026ldquo;personalized\u0026rdquo; scenarios, where participants are prompted to think about potential worrisome events in their lives. This approach, developed by Borkovec and Inz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) is widely used in experimental studies on worry (e.g., Behar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Fisher \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Llera \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Oathes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Zainal \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, traditional rumination inductions are typically \"scripted,\" involving participants reading statements prepared by researchers. This method was introduced by Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) and is commonly used in studies on rumination (e.g., LeMoult \u0026amp; Joormann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Watkins \u0026amp; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Whitmer \u0026amp; Gotlib, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperimental studies comparing worry and rumination generally used one of these two approaches: some adopted personalized inductions to elicit worry and rumination (e.g., Jamil \u0026amp; Llera, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kim \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kim \u0026amp; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; McLaughlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), whereas others relied on scripted inductions (e.g., Capobianco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Lewis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, the rationale for selecting one method over the other has not been thoroughly examined. There is no consensus on which is more effective. Additionally, it remains unclear if observed differences in worry and rumination are influenced by pre-existing group characteristics, such as anxiety or depression. To address these uncertainties, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of personalized and scripted induction methods, while also considering the potential impact of group characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe sought to answer the following questions: 1. Which induction method, between scripted and personalized, was more effective at inducing the targeted response? 2. Did the induction methods produce stronger responses when they matched the intended emotion? 3. To what extent did group characteristics influence the effects of each induction method?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited from a university subject pool, with a total of 356 individuals. Due to a computer error during the experiment, one participant's data was excluded, resulting in a final sample of 355, including 118 with GAD (and low depression), 113 with depression (and low GAD), and 124 healthy controls (HC). Participants were assigned to the GAD group if they met the full diagnostic criteria on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV (GAD-Q-IV; Newman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) and scored 13 or less on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, \u0026amp; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). They were included in the depression group if they scored 20 or above on the BDI-II and did not meet the diagnostic criteria on the GAD-Q-IV. Participants were categorized as HC if they neither met the diagnostic criteria on the GAD-Q-IV nor scored 14 or above on the BDI-II. Participants were randomly assigned to scripted (either scripted worry or scripted rumination) or personalized inductions (either personalized worry or personalized rumination), with stratification by group (GAD, depression, and HC)\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn1\" id=\"#FNLinkFn1\"\u003e[1]\u003c/a\u003e. The sample was predominantly female (282 women, 79.4% vs. 73 men, 20.6%). The racial composition included 267 White (75.2%), 37 Asian (10.4%), 22 Hispanic (6.2%), 18 Black or African-American (5.1%), and 11 from other racial backgrounds (3.1%). The mean age was 18.23 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.83). The average score for the GAD-Q-IV (using continuous scoring) was 4.88 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.88), whereas the average BDI-II score was 12.35 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.42). Further details on participant characteristics can be found in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic characteristics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;355)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGAD\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;118)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDepression\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;113)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHC\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;124)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategorical variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.340\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282 (79.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99 (83.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87 (77.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96 (77.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73 (20.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19 (16.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26 (23.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28 (22.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRace, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.336\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhite\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e267 (75.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93 (75.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81 (65.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93 (75.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37 (10.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 (10.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 (10.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 (8.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHispanic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22 (6.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (7.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (5.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrican-American\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 (5.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (0.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (7.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 (3.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 (4.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 (1.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (3.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuous variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.23 (2.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.30 (3.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.34 (2.85)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.06 (2.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.377\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.687\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGAD-Q-IV, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.88 (3.88)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.10 (1.58)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.40 (3.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.30 (1.35)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e846.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBDI-2, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.35 (10.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.92 (2.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.75 (6.19)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.39 (3.50)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e570.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. GAD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; HC, Healthy Controls; GAD-Q-IV, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV-Continuous Score; BDI-2, Beck Depression Inventory-2\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the authors' affiliated institution. Prior to the experiment, participants provided written consent, and the concepts of worry and rumination were explained to them. Following Borkovec et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e) and Nolen-Hoeksema (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e), worry was defined as \u0026ldquo;a chain of uncontrollable thoughts and images about things that might happen in the future,\u0026rdquo; whereas rumination was described as \u0026ldquo;passively and repetitively thinking about possible causes, implications, and consequences of stressful events and negative feelings as opposed to its solutions.\u0026rdquo; The experiment began with a 5-minute resting baseline to help participants acclimate to the setting. They then completed the assigned perseverative thought induction task. In the two personalized induction groups, they engaged either with their most worrisome or ruminative topics as vividly as possible for two minutes. In the two scripted induction groups, participants read a list of either worrisome or ruminative topics for eight minutes at their own pace. After the baseline and induction phase, participants rated their levels of worry and rumination. They received research credits for participating. All procedures were implemented using E-Prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools inc., 2002).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstruments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eGeneralized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV\u003c/em\u003e (Newman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe GAD-Q-IV is a nine-item self-report measure assessing GAD symptoms following diagnostic criteria outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Diagnoses can be established either through a dimensional cutoff or by determining if individuals meet full diagnostic criteria. In this study, we opted for criterion scoring based on a prior study (Moore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrating that it provided higher sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%) than dimensional scoring. The internal consistency of the current sample was great (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82)\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn2\" id=\"#FNLinkFn2\"\u003e[2]\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBeck Depression Inventory-II (Beck, Steer, \u0026 Brown, )\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe BDI-II is a 21-item self-report questionnaire that assesses major depressive disorder symptoms. It demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity (Beck, Steer, \u0026amp; Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Steer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) and high retest reliability (Beck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). A cutoff score of 18 has high sensitivity (94%) and specificity (92%) (Arnau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). We used a more rigorous cutoff \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20 or above for moderate to severe depression, and 13 or less for minimal depression, as suggested by the original study (Beck, Steer, Ball, et al., 1996) - to screen participants. Internal consistency in our sample was strong (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSubjective Emotion Scales\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring both the resting baseline and induction phases, participants were asked to rate their levels of worry and rumination using a 9-point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 0, indicating \u0026ldquo;not at all\u0026rdquo;, to 8, indicating \u0026ldquo;extremely\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eScripted Induction Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor script-based induction of worry, we presented items from the Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ; Tallis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). The WDQ comprises 25 items selected for their high intensity and frequency from the General Worry Questionnaire (GWQ; Tallis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). The WDQ covers a wide range of worry-provoking topics, such as relationships, an uncertain future, work-related concerns, and financial issues. Following previous studies (e.g., Freeman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Ikani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), we instructed participants to read through the worry-inducing topics at their own pace for eight minutes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the scripted rumination induction, we used the method developed by Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), consisting of 45 statements that encourage reflection on oneself, along with the causes and consequences of current feelings and situations. Participants read these statements at their own pace for eight minutes. Additional information is available in Method S1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePersonalized Induction Methods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor personalized worry and rumination inductions, we adapted Borkovec and Inz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026rsquo;s induction method. Before the experiment, participants wrote five scenarios that triggered the most intense worry or rumination for them. They then practiced thinking about each scenario for one minute and rated their level of worry and rumination on a 9-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 8 (extremely). To ensure the scenarios were suitable for the experiment, we pre-screened them using a set of standards. To qualify for emotion manipulation, the target emotion had to score above 4 on the scale and at least 3 points higher than the non-target emotions. Additionally, the temporal orientation had to align with the induction type: for worry, it needed to be future-oriented (above 4), and for rumination, past-oriented (below 4). During the induction period, participants engaged with their most intense worry or rumination scenario for two minutes. Further details are provided in Method S2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalytic plan\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted using RStudio version 2023.12.0\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;369 (RStudio Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). We computed descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics and GAD-Q-IV and BDI-II scores. To assess differences across groups and experimental conditions, we used ANOVA and chi-square tests, followed by pairwise comparisons when results were significant. To compare different induction methods (scripted vs. personalized) and types (worry induction vs. rumination induction), we used random-intercept linear mixed models. These models included group, induction (either method or type), time (resting baseline vs. induction phase), their interactions, and demographic covariates (age, gender, and race). When a significant two-way interaction between induction and time, or a three-way interaction among induction, time, and group was found, we conducted simple slope analyses to examine the significance of the slopes and the differences between them.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive statistics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs expected, the GAD group had higher GAD-Q-IV scores than both the depression and HC groups, whereas the depression group had higher scores than HC (with all \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). The depression group had higher BDI-II scores than the GAD group and HC, whereas the GAD group scored higher than HC. Age did not vary significantly across groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in gender distribution or racial identity. Group difference statistics are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also tested for differences across experimental conditions. Neither age, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 170.75)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.087, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, nor gender, χ\u0026sup2;(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.762, \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, nor racial identity, χ\u0026sup2;(12)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.42, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.219, \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.12 showed significant differences across conditions. There were also no significant differences in continuous GAD-Q-IV scores, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 194.85)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.61, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.189, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, and BDI-II scores, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 194.36)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.774, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01. Thus, participant assignment to experimental conditions was balanced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison of scripted vs. personalized worry induction method in the induction of worry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the worry induction, there was a significant two-way interaction between induction method and time, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 176.47)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11. Both the scripted, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.58, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.40 and personalized worry induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.73, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;87.00, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.44 increased worry from the resting baseline. The comparison of slopes showed that the personalized worry induction increased worry more than the scripted worry induction, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(175) = -4.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.66. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea illustrates the two-way interaction and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the means and standard deviations for worry scores at both the resting baseline and the induction phase. The three-way interaction between worry induction method, time, and group was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 176.47)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.087, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans and standard deviations for worry and rumination scores from resting baseline to induction phase by induction method (scripted vs. personalized) and induction type (worry induction vs. rumination induction)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScripted method\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePersonalized method\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorry induction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRumination induction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorry induction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRumination induction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInduction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorry score, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.03 (1.50)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.97 (2.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.07 (1.51)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.12 (1.94)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.79 (1.26)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.14 (1.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26 (1.70)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.03 (2.11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRumination score, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.90 (1.37)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.84 (2.28)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.17 (1.63)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.69 (2.38)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.70 (1.20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.94 (2.33)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.33 (1.85)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.72 (1.81)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Worry and rumination scores were rated on the 9-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 8.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison of scripted vs. personalized rumination induction method in the induction of rumination\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the rumination induction, a significant two-way interaction between the induction method and time was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 174.20)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;73.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30. Both scripted, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.97, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.62 and personalized rumination inductions, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.83, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.25 led to significant increases in rumination. However, the personalized rumination induction increased rumination more than the scripted rumination induction, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(172) = -6.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.03. The two-way interaction effect is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb, and the means and standard deviations for rumination scores at the resting baseline and during the induction phase are provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The three-way interaction between induction method, time, and group was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 174.20)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.096, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison of scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction in the induction of worry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe observed a significant two-way interaction between scripted induction type (worry vs. rumination) and time on worry, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 169.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19. Both the scripted worry induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.58, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.40 and scripted rumination induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.60, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.047, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.44 led to significant increases in worry. However, the scripted worry induction increased worry more than did the scripted rumination induction, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(171)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.61. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea illustrates the two-way interaction effect and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates the means and standard deviations for worry scores at both resting baseline and the induction phase. The three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 169.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.065, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison of scripted worry vs. scripted rumination induction in the induction of rumination\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two-way interaction between scripted induction type and time indicated no significant difference between the worry script and rumination script on increased rumination, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 169.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.00, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.159, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01. A significant increase in rumination was observed in both the scripted worry induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.48, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88, and the scripted rumination induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.97, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.62. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb illustrates the non-significant two-way interaction between induction type and time and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e displays the means and standard deviations for rumination scores at resting baseline and during the induction phase. Additionally, the three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 169.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.277, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison of personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction in the induction of worry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the personalized induction, we observed a significant two-way interaction between induction type (worry vs. rumination) and time, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 174.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;63.93, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.27, on increased worry. Both the personalized worry induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.73, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.44 and the personalized rumination induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.13, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.45, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.01 significantly increased worry from the resting baseline. However, the comparison of slopes indicated that the personalized worry induction increased worry more than the personalized rumination induction, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(176)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.72. The two-way interaction between induction type and time is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea, and means and standard deviations for worry scores at both resting baseline and during the induction phase are provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. In this model, the three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 174.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.587, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison of personalized worry vs. personalized rumination induction in the induction of rumination\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the induction of rumination, there was a significant two-way interaction between induction type and time, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 174.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17. Both the personalized worry induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.91, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.38, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.07 and personalized rumination induction, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.83, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.25 significantly increased rumination from the resting baseline. However, the slope comparison showed that the personalized rumination induction increased rumination more than the personalized worry induction, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(176) = -4.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.74. The two-way interaction between induction type and time is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb and the means and standard deviations for rumination scores at both the resting baseline and during the induction phase are displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. On the other hand, the three-way interaction between induction type, time, and group was not observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 174.00)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.84, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.161, \u0026#120578;\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study compared the effectiveness of personalized and scripted methods for inducing worry and rumination, an area that has not been thoroughly explored. We also examined whether these methods were more effective when aligned with the targeted repetitive thought process and whether their effects varied by diagnostic group. Our findings showed that the personalized method consistently outperformed the scripted method in eliciting the targeted repetitive thought process. These results held true regardless of group characteristics. Furthermore, the personalized induction led to more pronounced effects when the induction type matched the target repetitive thought process. Specifically, worry was induced more by the personalized worry induction than by personalized rumination induction, whereas rumination was evoked more by the personalized rumination induction than by the personalized worry induction, providing support for the validity of the personalized induction methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond the overall underperformance of the scripted method, the scripted rumination induction, in particular, presented specific issues. Although the scripted worry induction increased worry more than the scripted rumination induction, the scripted rumination induction did not increase rumination more than did the scripted worry induction. Thus the scripted rumination induction was no more effective at inducing rumination than the scripted worry induction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis discrepancy may stem from the original objectives behind the development of the scripted rumination induction method. Unlike the worry induction developed by Borkovec and Inz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), and designed to elicit worry, Nolen-Hoeksema and Morrow (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026rsquo;s rumination induction was originally designed to test the effects of reflective thought on depressive mood among individuals with depression. As a result, the content of the induction task was intentionally made to represent a more neutral form of mentation rather than explicitly negative themes. Although this approach helps identify thought patterns unique to those with depression, it may explain its reduced efficacy in inducing \u0026ldquo;depressive rumination,\u0026rdquo; which involves more overtly negative thinking (Conway et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Papageorgiou \u0026amp; Wells, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Robinson \u0026amp; Alloy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperimental studies wherein worry or rumination are induced, are important because they allow researchers to determine the causal impact of these repetitive thought processes. As noted above, worry and rumination have been implicated as transdiagnostic and are potentially causally related to the maintenance of many psychological disorders (Erickson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Multiple experimental studies have been conducted to confirm the similar or different effects of these thought processes on subjective and objective indices of emotion (e.g., Ottaviani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, the current study suggests that the specific induction methods used may lead to significantly different outcomes. In particular, we highly recommend using the personalized induction method, regardless of the thought process targeted as this method was more effective at inducing the targeted thought process. Future studies might also examine the induction of angry rumination and or obsessive thoughts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Although this study distinguished between GAD and depression to assess their separate effects on worry and rumination inductions, it is not uncommon for these conditions to coexist in the same individual. Including samples with comorbid GAD and depression could reveal whether having both disorders results in greater worry and rumination induction compared to having either condition alone. Furthermore, whereas we applied strict standards for participant screening, this study focused on a college sample, resulting in a relatively homogeneous group in terms of age and education. To enhance the generalizability of our findings, future research should aim to replicate this study with treatment-seeking populations from more diverse backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study demonstrated that personalized induction methods were more effective and appropriate for inducing worry and depressive rumination. We hope these findings will ease the burden on researchers in choosing a valid induction method and contribute to advancing knowledge and practices to help individuals grapple with repetitive negative thoughts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCRediT authorship contribution statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHanjoo Kim: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Visualization, and Writing - Original Draft. Michelle G. Newman: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, and Writing – Review \u0026amp; Editing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported in part by funding from the Bruce V. Moore Graduate Fellowship in Psychology from the Department of Psychology at Penn State and the National Institute of Mental Health, United States Research Grant MH115128.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe extend our heartfelt gratitude to the undergraduate research assistants at the Laboratory for Anxiety \u0026amp; Depression Research for their invaluable support with data collection and coding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAldao, A., Mennin, D. S., \u0026amp; McLaughlin, K. A. (2013). Differentiating worry and rumination: Evidence from heart rate variability during spontaneous regulation. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 613-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9485-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). \u003cem\u003eDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders\u003c/em\u003e (DSM-5; 5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnau, R. C., Meagher, M. W., Norris, M. P., \u0026amp; Bramson, R. (2001). Psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with primary care medical patients. \u003cem\u003eHealth Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 112-119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.20.2.112\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Ball, R., \u0026amp; Ranieri, W. F. (1996). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories-IA and-II in psychiatric outpatients. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 67\u003c/em\u003e(3), 588-597. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeck, A. T., Steer, R. A., \u0026amp; Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory-II. \u003cem\u003eAPA PsychTests\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00742-000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeck, A. T., Steer, R. A., \u0026amp; Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehar, E., Zuellig, A. R., \u0026amp; Borkovec, T. D. (2005). Thought and imaginal activity during worry and trauma recall. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80064-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorkovec, T. D., \u0026amp; Inz, J. (1990). The nature of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: A predominance of thought activity. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90027-G\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorkovec, T. D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., \u0026amp; DePree, J. A. (1983). Preliminary exploration of worry: Some characteristics and processes. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(83)90121-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCapobianco, L., Morris, J. A., \u0026amp; Wells, A. (2018). Worry and rumination: Do they prolong physiological and affective recovery from stress? \u003cem\u003eAnxiety Stress and Coping\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1438723\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConway, M., Csank, P. A., Holm, S. L., \u0026amp; Blake, C. K. (2000). On assessing individual differences in rumination on sadness. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 75\u003c/em\u003e(3), 404-425. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7503_04\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErickson, T. M., Newman, M. G., \u0026amp; Tingey, J. L. (2020). Worry and Rumination. In J. S. Abramowitz \u0026amp; S. M. Blakey (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eClinical handbook of fear and anxiety: Maintenance processes and treatment mechanisms\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 133-151). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000150-008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher, A. J., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2013). Heart rate and autonomic response to stress after experimental induction of worry versus relaxation in healthy, high-worry, and generalized anxiety disorder individuals. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 93\u003c/em\u003e(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, D., Startup, H., Dunn, G., Černis, E., Wingham, G., Pugh, K., Cordwell, J., \u0026amp; Kingdon, D. (2013). The interaction of affective with psychotic processes: a test of the effects of worrying on working memory, jumping to conclusions, and anomalies of experience in patients with persecutory delusions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of psychiatric research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 47\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1837-1842. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.06.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHearn, C. S., Donovan, C. L., Spence, S. H., \u0026amp; March, S. (2017). A worrying trend in Social Anxiety: To what degree are worry and its cognitive factors associated with youth Social Anxiety Disorder? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 208\u003c/em\u003e, 33-40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHong, R. Y. (2007). Worry and rumination: Differential associations with anxious and depressive symptoms and coping behavior. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHur, J., Gaul, K., \u0026amp; Berenbaum, H. (2019). Different patterns of attention bias in worry and rumination. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 713-725. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-09993-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIkani, N., Radix, A. K., Rinck, M., \u0026amp; Becker, E. S. (2022). Changing metacognitive appraisal bias in high-worriers through reappraisal training. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e(4), 852-863. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-022-10297-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJamil, N., \u0026amp; Llera, S. J. (2021). A transdiagnostic application of the contrast-avoidance model: The effects of worry and rumination in a personal-failure paradigm. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(5), 836-849. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702621991797\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2022). Avoidance of a negative emotional contrast from worry and rumination: An application of the contrast avoidance model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbct.2021.12.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2023). Worry and rumination enhance positive emotional contrast based on the framework of the Contrast Avoidance Model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, 102671. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102671\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKingston, R. E., Watkins, E. R., \u0026amp; Nolen\u0026ndash;Hoeksema, S. (2014). Investigating functional properties of depressive rumination: Insight and avoidance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.038013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeMoult, J., \u0026amp; Joormann, J. (2014). Depressive rumination alters cortisol decline in Major Depressive Disorder. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 100\u003c/em\u003e, 50-55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.05.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis, E. J., Blanco, I., Raila, H., \u0026amp; Joormann, J. (2019). Does repetitive negative thinking affect attention? Differential effects of worry and rumination on attention to emotional stimuli. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 19\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1450-1462. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000535\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLlera, S. J., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2010). Effects of worry on physiological and subjective reactivity to emotional stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder and nonanxious control participants. \u003cem\u003eEmotion\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 10\u003c/em\u003e(5), 640-650. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019351\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLlera, S. J., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2014). Rethinking the role of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Evidence supporting a model of Emotional Contrast Avoidance. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2013.12.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLlera, S. J., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2020). Worry impairs the problem-solving process: Results from an experimental study. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 135\u003c/em\u003e, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103759\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcLaughlin, K. A., Borkovec, T. D., \u0026amp; Sibrava, N. J. (2007). The effects of worry and rumination on affect states and cognitive activity [JOUR]. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.03.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMellings, T. M., \u0026amp; Alden, L. E. (2000). Cognitive processes in social anxiety: The effects of self-focus, rumination and anticipatory processing. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 243-257. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00040-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore, M. T., Anderson, N. L., Barnes, J. M., Haigh, E. A. P., \u0026amp; Fresco, D. M. (2014). Using the GAD-Q-IV to identify generalized anxiety disorder in psychiatric treatment seeking and primary care medical samples [Article]. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.10.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoulds, M. L., Bisby, M. A., Wild, J., \u0026amp; Bryant, R. A. (2020). Rumination in posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 82\u003c/em\u003e, 101910. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, M. G., Llera, S. J., Erickson, T. M., Przeworski, A., \u0026amp; Castonguay, L. G. (2013). Worry and generalized anxiety disorder: A review and theoretical synthesis of research on nature, etiology, and treatment. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 275-297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185544\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, M. G., Zuellig, A. R., Kachin, K. E., Constantino, M. J., Przeworski, A., Erickson, T., \u0026amp; Cashman-McGrath, L. (2002). Preliminary reliability and validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV: A revised self-report diagnostic measure of generalized anxiety disorder. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 215-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80026-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of depressive episodes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 100\u003c/em\u003e(4), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.100.4.569\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNolen-Hoeksema, S., \u0026amp; Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of rumination and distraction on naturally occurring depressed mood. \u003cem\u003eCognition and Emotion\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(6), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409206\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., \u0026amp; Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination [Peer Reviewed]. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 3\u003c/em\u003e(5), 400-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOathes, D. J., Ray, W. J., Yamasaki, A. S., Borkovec, T. D., Castonguay, L. G., Newman, M. G., \u0026amp; Nitschke, J. (2008). Worry, generalized anxiety disorder, and emotion: Evidence from the EEG gamma band [Peer Reviewed]. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 79\u003c/em\u003e(2), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.04.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOttaviani, C., Thayer, J. F., Verkuil, B., Lonigro, A., Medea, B., Couyoumdjian, A., \u0026amp; Brosschot, J. F. (2016). Physiological concomitants of perseverative cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis [doi:10.1037/bul0000036]. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 142\u003c/em\u003e(3), 231-259. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000036\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapageorgiou, C., \u0026amp; Wells, A. (Eds.). (2004). \u003cem\u003eDepressive rumination: Nature, theory and treatment\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713853.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePsychology Software Tools inc. (2002). \u003cem\u003eE-Prime 2.0.\u003c/em\u003e Pittsburgh, PA, USA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, M. S., \u0026amp; Alloy, L. B. (2003). Negative cognitive styles and stress-reactive rumination interact to predict depression: A prospective study. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 275-291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023914416469\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRStudio Team. (2023). \u003cem\u003eRStudio: Integrated Development for R\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eIn (Version 2023.12.0+369) RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarisoy, G., Pazvantoğlu, O., \u0026Ouml;zturan, D. D., Ay, N. D., Yilman, T., Mor, S., Korkmaz, I. Z., Ka\u0026ccedil;ar, \u0026Ouml;. F., \u0026amp; G\u0026uuml;m\u0026uuml;ş, K. (2014). Metacognitive beliefs in unipolar and bipolar depression: A comparative study. \u003cem\u003eNordic journal of psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 68\u003c/em\u003e(4), 275-281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2013.814710\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSegerstrom, S. C., Tsao, J. C. I., Alden, L. E., \u0026amp; Craske, M. G. (2000). Worry and rumination: Repetitive thought as a concomitant and predictor of negative mood. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 24\u003c/em\u003e(6), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005587311498\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilveira Jr, \u0026Eacute;. d. M., \u0026amp; Kauer-Sant\u0026apos;Anna, M. (2015). Rumination in bipolar disorder: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eBrazilian Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 256-263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2014-1556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteer, R. A., Ball, R., \u0026amp; Ranieri, W. F. (1999). Dimensions of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in clinically depressed outpatients. \u003cem\u003eJournal of clinical psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199901)55:1\u0026lt;117::AID-JCLP12\u0026gt;3.0.CO;2-A\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSzkodny, L. E., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2019). Delineating characteristics of maladaptive repetitive thought: Development and preliminary validation of the Perseverative Cognitions Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eAssessment\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1084-1104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117698753\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTallis, F., Davey, G. C. L., \u0026amp; Bond, A. (1994). The Worry Domains Questionnaire. In G. C. L. Davey \u0026amp; F. Tallis (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eWorrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment.\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 285-297). John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTallis, F., Eysenck, M. W., \u0026amp; Mathews, A. (1992). A questionnaire for the measurement of nonpathological worry. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90038-Q\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTopper, M., Molenaar, D., Emmelkamp, P. M., \u0026amp; Ehring, T. (2014). Are rumination and worry two sides of the same coin? A structural equation modelling approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 363-381. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.038813\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTull, M. T., Hahn, K. S., Evans, S. D., Salters-Pedneault, K., \u0026amp; Gratz, K. L. (2011). Examining the role of emotional avoidance in the relationship between posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity and worry. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Behaviour Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2010.515187\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatkins, E., \u0026amp; Brown, R. (2002). Rumination and executive function in depression: An experimental study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery \u0026amp; Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 72\u003c/em\u003e(3), 400-402. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.72.3.400\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatkins, E., Moulds, M., \u0026amp; Mackintosh, B. (2005). Comparisons between rumination and worry in a non-clinical population. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 43\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1577-1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.11.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitmer, A. J., \u0026amp; Gotlib, I. H. (2012). Switching and backward inhibition in major depressive disorder: the role of rumination. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 121\u003c/em\u003e(3), 570. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027474\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZainal, N. H., \u0026amp; Newman, M. G. (2018). Worry amplifies theory-of-mind reasoning for negatively valenced social stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 227\u003c/em\u003e, 824-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.084\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The sample sizes for the 2\u0026times;2\u0026times;3 between-subjects design are provided in Table S1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Only continuous items of the GAD-Q-IV were used to calculate Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Pennsylvania State University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"repetitive negative thought, worry, rumination, induction, experiment","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5139533/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5139533/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWorry and rumination are two forms of repetitive negative thoughts. Prior studies have identified similarities and differences between these two states. For a more comprehensive understanding of these thought processes, researchers need reliable methods to induce them experimentally. Traditionally, researchers have used either scripted or personalized approaches to trigger worry and rumination, but it remains unclear which method is more effective. Additionally, the potential impact of preexisting disorders like generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) or major depression (MDD) on these inductions is not well understood. This study aimed to compare scripted and personalized induction methods to identify which was more effective for eliciting worry and rumination, while also considering the potential influence of generalized anxiety and depression. Participants (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;355) included individuals with GAD, depression, or healthy controls. They were randomly assigned to either scripted or personalized induction tasks designed to induce worry or rumination. Findings revealed that personalized induction methods were consistently more effective than scripted methods for inducing both worry and rumination, regardless of participants' group characteristics. In addition to the general underperformance of scripted induction methods, the scripted rumination induction was notably less successful, failing to induce rumination to a greater extent than the scripted worry induction. Given these findings, personalized approaches are recommended for experimental studies that aim to compare worry and rumination. Limitations of the study and implications for future research are also discussed.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and validation of experimental induction tasks for worry and rumination: A comparison of scripted and personalized approaches","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-09-26 01:49:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5139533/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"20596670-35f0-47f9-b35a-f061cd94f2dc","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 26th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":38097155,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-26T01:49:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-09-26 01:49:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5139533","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5139533","identity":"rs-5139533","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}