Rumination impairs the control of stimulus-induced retrieval of irrelevant information, but not attention, control, or response selection in general

What is high rumination?

OBJECTIVE

The current paper tries to illuminate the need for standard cutoff points.

INTRODUCTION

rumination is considered to be a transdiagnostic process leading to a variety of consequences. But, what is prominent ruminative tendency? Are there agreed-upon specifications or cutoff points that distinguish between high and low tendency to ruminate? In an attempt to answer these questions, we reviewed 25 works that compared people characterized as high or low in rumination. We found numerous inconsistencies in the characterization criteria and a great variability in cutoff points. Most studies did not provide enough information about the cutoff criteria or values.

METHOD

We examined a sample of 454 participants using the RRS (Ruminative Response Scale), from which we tried to identify standard cutoff points.

RESULTS SHOWED

1) distributions of RRS, brooding and reflective pondering; 2) most studies used median split, which might explain the differences among studies; 3) examination of standard scores for the various cutoffs presented big variability among the studies; and 4) women had higher scores of rumination and brooding than men.

CONCLUSION

Our paper highlights the need for homogeneity in the field. It suggests addressing the RRS, brooding and reflective pondering distributions as references for future studies. We recommend specifying: cutoff criteria, cutoff values, range, means and standard deviations. Researchers should consider the specific population (i.e., men vs. women or clinical vs. non clinical) of interest and infer specific cutoff points accordingly. Importantly, researchers should consider the implications of their choice of cutoff points and apply their criterion accordingly.

A high-density EEG investigation into the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying differences between personality profiles in social information processing

This study investigated whether differences between personality styles in the processing of social stimuli reflect variability in underlying general-purpose or social-specific neurocognitive mechanisms. Sixty-five individuals classified previously into two distinct personality profiles underwent high-density electroencephalography whilst performing tasks that tap into both aspects of cognitive processing - namely, two distinct facets of general-purpose response inhibition (interference resolution and action withholding) during social information processing. To determine the stage of processing at which personality differences manifest, we assessed event-related components associated with the early visual discrimination of social stimuli (N170, N190) and later more general conflict-related processes (N2, P3). Although a performance index of interference resolution was comparable between the personality profiles, differences were detected in action withholding. Specifically, individuals expressing a wider repertoire of personality styles and more adaptive emotion regulation performed significantly better at withholding inappropriate actions to neutral faces presented in emotional contexts compared with those exhibiting stronger preferences for fewer and less adaptive personality styles and more ruminative affective tendencies. At the neurophysiological level, however, difference between the profiles was observed in brain responses elicited to the same stimuli within the N170. These results indicate that neural processes related to early visual discrimination might contribute to differences in the suppression of inappropriate responses towards social stimuli in populations with different personality dispositions.

The Association Between Work-Related Rumination and Executive Function Using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function

Work-related rumination has been associated with a number of health complaints, however, little is known about the underlying factors associated with rumination. Previous work using proxy measures of executive function showed work-related rumination to be negatively associated with executive function. In this paper, we report two studies that examined the association between work-related rumination and executive function utilizing an ecological valid measure of executive function: the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-A, Roth et al., 2005). In study 1 (N = 63), high, relative to low work-related ruminators, were found to demonstrate lower executive function skills, in eight of the nine subscales of the BRIEF. The aim of study 2 (N = 237) was to identify, the key executive function subscale/s associated with work-related rumination. Controlling for known factors associated with work-related rumination (fatigue and sleep), regression analysis identified the behavioral regulation subscale “shift” as the key predictor within the model. Shift relates to our ability to switch attention, to think about different solutions, and dealing with and accepting change. It was concluded that these findings lend support for future research to develop interventions for enhancing shift ability, as an aid to reduce work-related ruminative thinking.