The How and Why of Rumination and Worry Edward Watkins, PhD University of Exeter [email protected]; © ERW 2010 Lessons for psychological treatments from experimental research into repetitive thought © ERW 2010 Acknowledgements - People Research collaborators Dr Nick Moberly Dr Michelle Moulds Yanni Malliaris Sandra Kennell-Webb Prof Colin MacLeod Simona Baracaia Dr Celine Baeyens Rebecca Read Therapy development & trial Dr Katharine Rimes Dr Anna Lavender Dr Janet Wingrove Dr Neil Bathurst Rachel Eastman © ERW 2009 Professor Jan Scott Mood Disorders Centre co-directors Dr Willem Kuyken Dr Eugene Mullan All patients and participants Acknowledgements - Funders © ERW 2010 Overview Negative repetitive thought (RT e.g., worry & rumination) = core process in depression & anxiety target RT to improve treatments for depression & anxiety But RT is normal & can be helpful e.g., problemsolving, coming to terms past events Key questions in RT: Why?, How?, Who?, What determines if helpful or unhelpful? Investigate mechanisms of RT Translate into treatment Relationship to mindfulness Repetitive Thought (RT) Segerstrom et al., (2003, p.3) “process of thinking attentively, repetitively or frequently about one’s self and one’s world”. Includes: Rumination = “passively and repetitively focusing on one’s symptoms of distress and the circumstances surrounding these symptoms” (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1997). Worry = “a chain of thoughts and images, negatively affect-laden and relatively uncontrollable”, “an attempt to engage in mental problem-solving on an issue whose outcome is uncertain but contains the possibility of one or more negative outcomes” (Borkovec et al., 1983, p. 9). Repetitive Thought (RT) But also includes – Cognitive Processing = the process of actively thinking about a stressor, the thoughts and feelings it evokes and its implications for one's life and future (Bower et al., 1998; Greenberg, 1995) , viewed as necessary part of process of attempting to resolve the discrepancy between stressful events and core beliefs and assumptions (Horowitz, 1985). Problem Solving e.g., repeated mental simulation and rehearsing of future actions and situations (Taylor et al., 1998). Watkins (2008)– Negative consequences of RT What does this mean about me? What if it goes wrong? Exacerbates negative mood & cognition in experiments © ERW 2009 Why can’t I handle things better? Imagine catastrophic consequences Why did this happen to me? Why do I feel so bad? Linked to less effective therapy Predicts onset, duration, severity of depression, anxiety, PTSD, substance abuse, eating disorders in prospective studies Watkins (2008)– Positive consequences of RT What can I do next? What is important to me now? What are the positive benefits of this? How did this happen? What can I learn from this? How can I fix this? Reduces negative mood & improves planning & problem-solving in experiments Predicts recovery from upsetting and traumatic events and from depression in some prospective studies © ERW 2009 Lesson for Psychological Treatment 1 RT should not be treated as always pathological Useful to normalise the experience – “we all do it” Patients (& therapists) would benefit from discriminating between when helpful vs. unhelpful (“Is it an unanswerable question? Is this leading to a useful decision or plan?”) Requires awareness and “skilful” action © ERW 2010 Q1 How does it start? RT Q3 What determines consequences? Q2 –Why is RT more frequent, more persistent in some people? Q1. What initiates RT? Theory: Martin & Tesser (1996), Watkins (2008) – RT triggered by a discrepancy between actual & desired/expected state = unresolved goal, loss, trauma Discrepancy increases attention to & accessibility of information related to goal – with instrumental function of focusing on goal resolution (i.e., unresolved tagged mentally to aid resolution). RT ceases if goal is attained or abandoned Consistent evidence from Zeigarnik effect (interrupted recalled better than completed), current concerns literature, ESM studies (Moberly & Watkins, 2009). © ERW 2010 Implications of problematic goal attainment account Explains RT as a normal cognitive process, with potential instrumental effects Adaptive or maladaptive depends upon whether increased focus on discrepancy helps to problem solve or not Problem if goal unattainable & unable to let go of goal – e.g., perfectionism, goal linked self-concept, unanswerable question → Perseveration of RT results from ineffective processing that prevents problem-solving & coming to terms (See Q3) © ERW 2010 Lesson for Psychological Treatment 2 Telling people to stop worry & rumination won’t work Thought-stopping & Distraction can only be short-lived RT will reoccur until goal discrepancy resolved Letting go of goals, desires may help reduce RT © ERW 2010 Q2. What causes people to get stuck? What underlies individual differences in RT? Hypothesis 1: RT (e.g., worry, rumination) is a learnt habitual response style (Response Styles Theory, NolenHoeksema, 1991). – Could be learnt through modelling, failure to learn more adaptive strategies, or because it is negatively reinforced (removal of aversive experience) –e.g., avoid risk failure, cognitive avoidance, control feelings, second guessing (nb. Superstitious, partial, poor discrimination) (Ferster, 1981, Martell et al., 2001) – Negative RT associated self-report index of habit, capturing whether thoughts are frequent, unintended, initiated without awareness, difficult to control (Verplanken et al., 2007). © ERW 2010 Lesson for Psychological Treatment 3 Habits resist informational interventions (Verplanken & Wood, 2006) Hence, focus on thought content alone (e.g., thought challenging) may be insufficient – need to change process. Successful habit change involves disrupting the environmental factors (time, place, mood) that automatically cue habit And/or learning an alternative incompatible response to cues (through repetition & training). © ERW 2010 RT as Habit = tendency for Cascade of Negative thoughts Q2. What causes people to get stuck? What underlies individual differences in RT? Hypothesis 2: Vulnerability to RT results in difficulties from disengaging from negative information (local, data signalling discrepancy) & unattained goals (distal, underlying). – Koster et al., (2011) argue RT results from impaired attentional disengagement from negative self-relevant information – Donaldson & Lam, 2006 evidence that trait rumination associated attention bias towards negative material © ERW 2010 Trait Rumination associated longer gaze Fixation on sad image relative to other stimuli in eye tracker (Watkins, pilot study) © ERW 2010 Lesson for Psychological Treatment 4 Improving attentional control may be a means to reduce RT Training attention to focus on positive information or to move away from negative may reduce RT (Cognitive Bias Modification). © ERW 2010 Q3. What makes RT helpful or unhelpful? a. Unsurprising, less interesting answer = VALENCE of thought content (Watkins, 2008) RT (Finding benefit = focus on positive content) Q3. But what makes RT about negative content/event helpful or unhelpful? RT Answer: Processing Mode RT A process approach Both worry and rumination share similar mental process of abstract thinking (if different content): (i) conceptual thinking about implications (threat vs. self- identity); (ii) thinking that is distanced from grounding in here-and-now concrete perceptual experience (future vs. past) e.g., Rumination involves repeatedly asking “why me?”, evaluating self, thinking about the self Teasdale (1999) hypothesized that different modes of processing (“conceptualizing” vs. “direct experiencing”) would differentially influence rumination In parallel, proposal that pathological worry involves conceptual-abstract style & reduced concreteness (Borkovec et al., 1998; Stober, 1998; Stober & Borkovec, 2002; Stober, Tepperwien, & Staak, 2000). “Think about the causes, meanings problem solving effectiveness 1-7 and consequences of…..” symptoms versus & feelings (evaluative-abstract) “Focus your attention on your experience of……” symptoms & feelings (experiential – concrete) 4.5 4 3.5 depressed-evaluative depressed-concrete control-evaluative control-concrete 3 2.5 2 1.5 Group x Condition X Time F (1,75) = 8.37, p < .005: 1 pre-manipulation post-manipulation Watkins & Moulds (2005) Emotion Watkins & Baracaia (2002): Style of processing influences problem-solving N u m b e r o f m e a n s te p s 16 14 12 10 8 no question why question how question 6 4 2 0 never depressed recovered depressed currentlydepressed Depression status Watkins (2004)– Processing style influences recovery from upsetting event depressed mood 1-7 4 p < .05 3.5 3 2.5 low rum - concrete "how" 2 low rum - abstract/"why" high rum - concrete/ "how" 1.5 high rum - abstract/"why" 1 baseline postfailure essay1 time essay2 essay3 Refinement of goal attainment account Martin & Tesser (1996) account within control theory (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1982, 1990; Powers, 1973; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987), which predicts: (a) Goals & actions organized hierarchically: abstract levels (represent ends “why” a subordinate goal/action is performed, e.g., implications for self-concept) feed down to concrete levels (represent means of “how” the superordinate goal/action is enacted, e.g., programmes & sequences of actions). (b) At any moment, attention can be focused at any particular level, with result that goals, actions, events represented more abstractly or more concretely (mode of processing) (c) Processing difficult stressful situations at abstract level may be problematic since (i) concern more personally important thus more emotional impact & harder to abandon; (ii) provide less specification of alternatives & steps to proceed © ERW 2009 Training thinking style Inspired by Mathews & Mackintosh (2000), MacLeod et al., (2002), MacLeod & Rutherford, (2004), etc, we asked if individuals can be trained in/out different styles? Focus on cognitive intervention for rumination Idea of training participants to adopt abstract vs. concrete mindsets prior to a stressor Tests causal role of abstract style/bias on emotional reactivity Watkins, Moberly & Moulds, 2008 (Emotion) - participants imagine 30 emotional scenarios (e.g., argument with best friend) in one style as training before a stressful anagram test Abstract: I would like you to think about why it happened, and to analyse the causes, meanings and implications of this event.’ Concrete: I would like you to focus on how it happened, and to imagine in your mind as vividly and as concretely as possible a “movie” of how this event unfolded.’ Training mode causally influences despondency after failure Condition x Time, p < .05 45 Despondency VAS 40 35 30 Condition x Time, ns 25 Why Mode 20 How Mode 15 10 5 0 baseline post-training post-failure Processing Mode RT Lesson for Psychological Treatment 4 Targeting processing style may be able to shift from maladaptive to adaptive RT Training individuals to be more concrete (asking How?) is more adaptive when responding to negative situations than being abstract (asking Why?). → treatment developments © ERW 2010 Rumination-focused CBT (RFCBT) 1 RFBCT grounded within the core principles and techniques of CBT for depression (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979) with two adaptations: – a functional-analytical perspective using Behavioural Activation (BA) approaches (Addis & Martell, 2004; Martell et al., 2001) → target habit – a focus on directly shifting processing style via imagery & experiential approaches & FA → shift from unhelpful to helpful forms of RT – i.e., Both approaches focused on changing process of thinking, not content © ERW 2010 Functional analysis FA focuses on variability & context of rumination (when helpful/unhelpful, when less/more; Antecedents – Behaviour – Consequences). Used to: (a) recognise warning signs for rumination – increase awareness of habit (b) develop alternative strategies and contingency plans (e.g., relaxation, assertiveness) & repeatedly practise to generate new habit (c) alter environmental and behavioural contingencies maintaining rumination (remove environmental cues to habit). (d) shift towards more helpful thinking & discriminating between helpful vs. unhelpful thinking © ERW 2010 Shifting processing style 1 Coach experiential exercises/ build up activities to shift out of abstract-evaluative rumination mode A) Focus on recreating experiences of being in a process-focused mode – absorbed, caught up in the task, “flow”, “in the zone”, peak experiences © ERW 2010 Shifting processing style 2 B) Compassionate, tolerant, caring, nurturing, nonjudgemental mode Both involve focus on holistic experiential shift: thoughts, feelings, posture, sensory experience, bodily sensations, attitude, motivation, facial expression, action feelings © ERW 2010 PILOT RCT Acute ADM treatment Residual Depression GP/CMHT referral to the study Screening assessment Informed consent? (n = 40) Yes: Conduct full intake assessment Randomise (n=42) Treatment as usual (antidepressants) May include CBT Individual RFCBT + TAU Up to 12 sessions Post-intervention assessment – blind at 16-20 weeks (n = 40) Inclusion: a. DSM-IV criteria for MDD last 18 mths, not last 2 mths; b. residual symptoms ≥ 8 on 17-item HRSD & ≥ 14 on BDI-II; c. ADM for ≥ 8 weeks Exclusion: History of bipolar disorder, psychotic disorder, current substance dependence No: Return to treatment-as-usual Change in HRSD by treatment arm 14 HRS D sco re 12 10 8 TAU (ADM) TAU + RFCBT 6 4 2 0 pre-intervention post-intervention time Condition X Time, F (1, 38) = 7.38, p < .01. Betweentreatments effect size for HRSD, Cohen’s d = 0.895 © ERW 2009 Change in HRSD by treatment arm 14 HRSD score 12 10 TAU (ADM) TAU+RFCBT TAU+CBT TAU-PAYKEL 8 6 4 2 0 pre-intervention post-intervention time Condition X Time, F (1, 38) = 7.38, p < .01 Betweentreatments Cohen’s d = 0.895 © ERW 2009 effect size for HRSD, Change in RSQ (rumination) by treatment arm 62 57 RSQ score 52 47 TAU RFCBT 42 37 32 27 22 pre-intervention post-intervention time Condition by Time, F(1, 37)= 4.01, p < .05 Between-treatments effect size for RSQ, Cohen’s d = 0.645 Concreteness training Watkins, Baeyens, Read (2009) 59 stable dysphoric participants (29 current MDE,45 past MDE). Randomized to – Active concreteness training (concrete exercises from Watkins et al. (2008) adapted and recorded on CD), practised daily 1 week – Bogus training (=placebo control, matched contact time & rationale) – Waiting list control Concreteness Training Key elements via direct instructions, guiding questions: – (a) focusing on details in the moment (e.g., questions asking participants to focus on and describe what they could see, hear, feel); – (b) noticing what is specific and distinctive about the context of the event; – (c) noticing the process of how events and behaviors unfold (e.g., “imagine a movie of how events unfolded”); – (d) generating detailed step-by-step plans of how to proceed from here. © ERW 2010 Watkins et al., 2009 Waitinglist Concreteness-active CD Bogus training N = 59 35 30 B D I-II 25 20 15 10 Time p < .001, f = 1.36 Time 24x Cond p = .03, f = .37 18.1 11.7 5 0 Assessment 1 Pre-training Post-training Condition x Time, F (2, 56) = 8.4, p < .001 MRC Cognitive Training Guided Self-help Trial 121 patients MDE recruited in primary care Guided self-help: 1 face-to-face session (90 mins), 3 x 30-min phone sessions over 6 weeks, CD exercises Random allocation to – Concreteness Training (CT) + Treatment-as-usual (TAU) – Relaxation Training (RT) treatment control, matched for rationale, duration, therapist contact) + TAU – TAU (as provided by GP, 50% antidepressants) Blind assessment (SCID, HRSD, BDI) pre-treatment, post-treatment, 3 & 6 month follow-up Stratification by a) severity of depression; b) antidepressant use Lesson for Psychological Treatment 5 Targeting processing style has treatment value Clinical work can inform experimental research Experimental research can inform and develop treatments. There is value in: – Treatment targeted on core identified process – Developing interventions informed by basic research into mechanisms of core process © ERW 2010 Lessons to treat RT Patients (& therapists) would benefit from discriminating between when RT helpful vs. unhelpful = awareness & skilful action Letting go of goals, desires Learning an alternative incompatible response to RT cues (through repetition & training). Mindfulness Improving attentional control Training to be more concrete (Focus on immediate context ) Increase self-compassion = potential mechanism © ERW 2010 Rumination and mindfulness Thus, mindfulness = antithetical state to rumination Evidence that mindfulness reduces rumination: – Experimental studies e.g., Feldman et al., 2010 – RCTs – Chambers et al., 2008, non-clinical group, mindfulness retreat vs. WL; Jain et al., 2007, students elevated distress, mindfulness vs. relaxation; Ramel et al., 2004, lifetime mood disorders, MBSR vs. WL [BUT not found in recent MBCT vs ADM trial in recurrent depression, Kuyken et al., 2007). © ERW 2010 Thank you Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] © ERW 2010
© Copyright 2024