Further analyses of appraisals of losing control and other OCD-related cognitions: A quasi-experimental investigation

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101998
Andrea Sandstrom, Adam S. Radomsky
{"title":"Further analyses of appraisals of losing control and other OCD-related cognitions: A quasi-experimental investigation","authors":"Andrea Sandstrom,&nbsp;Adam S. Radomsky","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>Cognitive models of OCD posit that dysfunctional beliefs contribute to the maintenance of symptoms. In addition to well-established belief domains, beliefs about losing control has been identified as a novel cognitive domain which may influence OCD phenomena, including other dysfunctional beliefs. However, the exact nature of these relationships and whether such relationships are influenced by OCD symptoms is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between appraisals of losing control and other OCD-relevant appraisals in individuals scoring high and low on OCD symptoms.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>137 participants completed a vignette task describing hypothetical scenarios relevant to OCD (doubting and aggressive thoughts) which varied in the level of losing control (high vs. low) and answered questions to assess other OCD-relevant appraisals.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There was a significant main effect of losing control appraisals on other OCD-relevant appraisals in the aggressive thought vignettes but not in the doubting vignettes. OCD symptoms had a significant effect on OCD-relevant appraisals in both the aggressive thought and doubting vignettes. There were no significant interactions.</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>Appraisals of losing control did not significantly differ in the doubting vignettes suggesting the impact of the manipulation may have been limited.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Findings suggest that both appraisals of losing control and level of OCD symptoms may be associated with other OCD-relevant appraisals, however these effects may be independent of one another.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"86 ","pages":"Article 101998"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000570","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives

Cognitive models of OCD posit that dysfunctional beliefs contribute to the maintenance of symptoms. In addition to well-established belief domains, beliefs about losing control has been identified as a novel cognitive domain which may influence OCD phenomena, including other dysfunctional beliefs. However, the exact nature of these relationships and whether such relationships are influenced by OCD symptoms is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between appraisals of losing control and other OCD-relevant appraisals in individuals scoring high and low on OCD symptoms.

Methods

137 participants completed a vignette task describing hypothetical scenarios relevant to OCD (doubting and aggressive thoughts) which varied in the level of losing control (high vs. low) and answered questions to assess other OCD-relevant appraisals.

Results

There was a significant main effect of losing control appraisals on other OCD-relevant appraisals in the aggressive thought vignettes but not in the doubting vignettes. OCD symptoms had a significant effect on OCD-relevant appraisals in both the aggressive thought and doubting vignettes. There were no significant interactions.

Limitations

Appraisals of losing control did not significantly differ in the doubting vignettes suggesting the impact of the manipulation may have been limited.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that both appraisals of losing control and level of OCD symptoms may be associated with other OCD-relevant appraisals, however these effects may be independent of one another.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Predictors of polyregulation and its effectiveness following exposure to One's most personally distressing intrusive thought Further analyses of appraisals of losing control and other OCD-related cognitions: A quasi-experimental investigation Ecological momentary assessment models trajectories of expectancy following exposure: A proof-of-concept pilot study Joint attention effect on irrelevant stimuli resistance in high functional autism and neurotypical adults
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1