Development and validation of experimental induction tasks for worry and rumination: A comparison of personalized and scripted approaches

BACKGROUND: Worry and rumination are two forms of repetitive negative thinking. Whereas prior research has highlighted both their distinct and overlapping characteristics, the experimental induction of these states provides a valuable means of investigating their mechanisms. Two induction methods have been used: personalized based on self-relevant content, and scripted using standardized prompts. However, no studies have directly compared these methods, and it remains unclear whether they elicit equally pronounced responses. Additionally, the moderating role of symptom profiles, such as elevated anxiety or depression symptoms, has not been well characterized. METHOD: This study systematically compared personalized and scripted induction methods for eliciting worry and rumination, and whether outcomes varied across induction focus (worry vs. rumination) and symptom-based groups. A total of 355 participants were categorized into three groups: individuals meeting the GAD-Q-IV criteria for generalized anxiety (n = 118), individuals with elevated depression symptoms on the BDI-II (n = 113), and individuals with low symptoms (n = 124). Participants were assigned to one of four conditions (personalized vs. scripted × worry vs. rumination). RESULTS: Personalized induction methods elicited the targeted cognitive states more effectively than scripted methods, regardless of group. Additionally, the effect was strongest for target-specific outcomes relative to non-target outcomes. Results were robust to dimensional symptom modeling and demographic covariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight that personalized induction methods may provide a more ecologically valid and responsive tool than scripted induction approaches for experimentally eliciting worry and rumination. Implications for induction selection and study design are discussed.