Perseverative Negative Thinking, Self-Control, and Executive Functioning in Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Competing Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this meta-analysis, we synthesized existing research on perseverative negative thinking, self-control, and executive functioning to better define their etiologic role in symptoms of depression and anxiety. After a review of leading models of perseverative negative thinking, self-control, executive functioning, and depressive and anxious symptoms, the relevant associations were meta-analyzed as reported in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. A total of 223 studies met the inclusion criteria, providing 239 independent samples (28 of which provided longitudinal data), N = 50,987. According to both longitudinal and cross-sectional path analyses, self-control deficits predict depression and anxiety symptoms, and these symptoms then predict perseverative negative thinking. In the present research synthesis, we identified evidence that reduced self-control predicts increases in depressive and anxious symptoms, which, in turn, lead to perseverative negative thinking. All in all, this finding suggests an opportunity to treat depression and anxiety through training of self-control and emotional-regulation strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it