Rumination in response to repugnant obsessions: Catching the sneakiest of compulsions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rumination is a mental process characterized by the repetitive analysis of concerns without taking concrete or helpful action. It has been shown to be transdiagnostic, contributing to the maintenance and exacerbation of symptoms across various mental disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Historically conceptualized as part of the obsessional domain due to its repetitive and intrusive qualities, rumination is now better understood as a covert compulsion-one that reinforces the overimportance of otherwise normal, unwanted intrusions, particularly in the case of repugnant obsessions. Consequently, it is crucial for clinicians to frame rumination as a mental habit or behavior in which individuals with OCD attempt to understand the causes, meaning, and consequences of their thoughts. This unproductive and time-consuming process not only amplifies intrusive doubts but also worsens mood, placing individuals at high risk for comorbid depression. This article outlines how rumination fits within the cognitive-behavioral model of OCD and, more importantly, offers practical refinements to standard cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions, drawing from evidence-based strategies for OCD and related disorders as well as from behavioral activation. The aim is to better equip clinicians with tools to effectively target rumination in OCD, particularly in presentations involving repugnant obsessions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".