![](https://d3ilqtpdwi981i.cloudfront.net/FdtY7FgS5yme4kgIRBLabRsazqU=/425x550/smart/https://bepress-attached-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/3d/89/8b/3d898bea-7084-46c5-b9a0-860a084914d9/thumbnail_3e33a2b8-25a5-41bb-abb6-a1d90c531fbc.jpg)
To understand cognitive bases of self-reported ruminative tendencies, we examined interpretations and subsequent memories of ambiguous situations depicting opportunities for rumination. In Experiment 1, we recruited students, randomly assigned them to a distracting or ruminative concentration task, and then measured their latencies to complete fragments that resolved situational ambiguity in either a ruminative or a benign direction. Students in the ruminative task condition who previously self-identified as brooders were quicker to complete ruminative fragments. In Experiment 2, we simulated this bias to investigate its possible contribution to rumination; nonbrooding students were trained to make ruminative or benign resolutions of ambiguous situations. Ruminative training led to more negative continuations of new, potentially ruminative situations in a subsequent transfer task. Next, ruminative training also caused more negatively valenced errors in recalling the ambiguous transfer situations. Finally, after reflection about a personal experience, state-rumination scores were higher in the ruminative condition. These results establish the causal role of interpretation biases in ruminative patterns of thought.