(PS11-87) Perseverative Thinking as a Mental Habit: Evidence from a Cue-reactivity Paradigm

Background: Perseverative thinking (PT) is a cognitive process involving negative, repetitive thoughts that are difficult to control. Although PT is often presumed to be triggered by stressful events, clinicians have observed that PT sometimes occurs spontaneously in the absence of a stressor, suggesting that it can become a conditioned response to contexts in which it is often performed (Borkovec et al., 1983). As an automatic, context-cued response, PT shares core characteristics with habits (Wood et al., 2021). These shared characteristics have led some researchers to speculate that PT may function as a mental habit (Verplanken et al., 2007; Watkins & Roberts, 2020). Despite important theoretical and clinical implications of this claim, it has not been tested directly. To provide a first test, the present experiment evaluated whether PT is cued directly and automatically by contexts in which it has repeatedly been performed. 

Method: Undergraduate students (N = 53) completed an experimental paradigm that was previously used to study habitual craving responses in smokers (Conklin et al., 2008, 2010). Participants photographed locations where they frequently engage in PT (Habitual contexts) and locations where they infrequently or never engage in PT (Control contexts). In a computer experiment a week later, they viewed these photographs as well as experimenter-photographed locations that were not personally relevant (Standard contexts). While vividly imagining themselves in each location, participants rated their current thought valence (-10 to +10 scale) and negative affect (0-100), along with other ratings. They also completed trait measures assessing their general tendency to perseverate (PTQ, Ehring et al., 2011; HINT, Verplanken et al., 2007) and their habit strength of PT, reflecting a tendency to perseverate in stable contexts (FIC, Neal et al., 2012; CS, Danner et al., 2008; Labrecque & Wood, 2015). 

Results: Our measure of PT, context-cued thought ratings, differed across cue types, F = 59.74, p < .001, η2p = .54. On average, thoughts were negative while viewing Habit locations (M = -2.34, SD = 2.61), positive while viewing Control locations (M = 1.96, SD = 2.20), and neutral while viewing Standard locations (M = 0.41, SD = 1.26). Negative affect was also much higher after viewing Habit locations compared to Control and Standard locations, F = 84.24, p < .001, η2p = .62. Trait measures that captured greater habit strength of PT predicted more negative thoughts (r = -.28 to -.29, p = .035-.041) and more negative affect (r = .27 to .39, p = .004-.054) during Habit cue exposure. By contrast, trait measures that captured a general tendency to perseverate did not predict negative thoughts (r = -.04 to .04, p = .755-.765) nor negative affect (r = -.10 to .03, p = .493-.811) during Habit cue exposure. 



Conclusion: Negative thoughts occur spontaneously in environments where PT has been repeated. This opens up the possibility of using habit-change interventions (Wood & Neal, 2016) to manage involuntary, intrusive negative thoughts. The poster will include additional data from ongoing research evaluating the automaticity (via reaction time) and idiosyncratic cuing (via independent ratings) of PT in Habitual locations versus other valenced locations.