4.3 Article

Cross-sectional and prospective associations between stress, perseverative cognition and health behaviours

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY & HEALTH
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 87-104

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2020.1867727

Keywords

Perseverative cognition; worry; brooding; reflection; stress; health behaviours

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the associations between components of perseverative cognition and health behaviors. The results show that worry, brooding, and reflection are related to sleep and unhealthy snacking. Controlling for stress, the association between brooding and unhealthy snacking remains significant.
Objectives The Perseverative Cognition Hypothesis (proposing negative repetitive thinking has detrimental effects on physical health), has been extended to include health behaviours. This study aimed to examine relationships between perseverative cognition, stress and health behaviours. Design Participants (n = 336) completed online surveys twice, 3 months apart. Main outcome measures Cross-sectional and prospective associations between perseverative cognition (worry, brooding and reflection), stress and health behaviours (sleep, diet, physical activity and alcohol). Results Analyses demonstrated associations between worry, brooding and reflection and health behaviours, cross-sectionally and prospectively, including sleep and unhealthy snacking. Adding perseverative cognition variables to models simultaneously, only two associations remained (brooding and unhealthy snacking, worry and poorer sleep quality). Controlling for stress, only the cross-sectional association between brooding and more unhealthy snacking remained significant and no significant interactions with stress were found. Conclusion This study evidences associations between components of perseverative cognition and health behaviours cross-sectionally and prospectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available