{"title":"对潜在伤害的责任感是否会减轻重复检查对元记忆和自动化的影响?","authors":"Karina Wahl, Martin Kollárik, Roselind Lieb","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Repeated checking results in large reductions in metamemory variables (confidence, details, and vividness). It has been suggested that the underlying mechanism is gradual automatization. At the same time, individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are reluctant to automatize routine processes. The aim was to investigate whether high responsibility for potential harm, typical of OCD, would attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables and automatization.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred seventy-five participants were initially provided with a cover story that put the subsequent virtual checking task in a context of potential harm for not checking properly. Participants were randomly allocated to four experimental groups (varying high and low responsibility, relevant and irrelevant checking) and performed a virtual checking task repeatedly, using either identical stimuli (relevant checking) or different stimuli (irrelevant checking) between the first and final checking trial. Metamemory variables were rated on visual analogue scales, and response latencies were assessed to establish automatization.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Larger reductions in metamemory variables following relevant checking compared to irrelevant checking replicated previous findings. High responsibility did not affect these results. Large reductions in response latencies across the checking trials (automatization) were also independent of the perceived responsibility.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>We did not include individuals with OCD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Since responsibility did not influence the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables, findings are consistent with the idea that automatization remains a plausible explanation of the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables in individuals with OCD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"85 ","pages":"Article 101977"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000363/pdfft?md5=711ac15b1a6d45ee8e495416c59496a8&pid=1-s2.0-S0005791624000363-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does responsibility for potential harm attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory and automatization?\",\"authors\":\"Karina Wahl, Martin Kollárik, Roselind Lieb\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101977\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>Repeated checking results in large reductions in metamemory variables (confidence, details, and vividness). It has been suggested that the underlying mechanism is gradual automatization. At the same time, individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are reluctant to automatize routine processes. The aim was to investigate whether high responsibility for potential harm, typical of OCD, would attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables and automatization.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred seventy-five participants were initially provided with a cover story that put the subsequent virtual checking task in a context of potential harm for not checking properly. Participants were randomly allocated to four experimental groups (varying high and low responsibility, relevant and irrelevant checking) and performed a virtual checking task repeatedly, using either identical stimuli (relevant checking) or different stimuli (irrelevant checking) between the first and final checking trial. Metamemory variables were rated on visual analogue scales, and response latencies were assessed to establish automatization.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Larger reductions in metamemory variables following relevant checking compared to irrelevant checking replicated previous findings. High responsibility did not affect these results. Large reductions in response latencies across the checking trials (automatization) were also independent of the perceived responsibility.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>We did not include individuals with OCD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Since responsibility did not influence the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables, findings are consistent with the idea that automatization remains a plausible explanation of the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables in individuals with OCD.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48198,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"85 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101977\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000363/pdfft?md5=711ac15b1a6d45ee8e495416c59496a8&pid=1-s2.0-S0005791624000363-main.pdf\",\"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/S0005791624000363\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791624000363","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does responsibility for potential harm attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory and automatization?
Background and objectives
Repeated checking results in large reductions in metamemory variables (confidence, details, and vividness). It has been suggested that the underlying mechanism is gradual automatization. At the same time, individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are reluctant to automatize routine processes. The aim was to investigate whether high responsibility for potential harm, typical of OCD, would attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables and automatization.
Methods
One hundred seventy-five participants were initially provided with a cover story that put the subsequent virtual checking task in a context of potential harm for not checking properly. Participants were randomly allocated to four experimental groups (varying high and low responsibility, relevant and irrelevant checking) and performed a virtual checking task repeatedly, using either identical stimuli (relevant checking) or different stimuli (irrelevant checking) between the first and final checking trial. Metamemory variables were rated on visual analogue scales, and response latencies were assessed to establish automatization.
Results
Larger reductions in metamemory variables following relevant checking compared to irrelevant checking replicated previous findings. High responsibility did not affect these results. Large reductions in response latencies across the checking trials (automatization) were also independent of the perceived responsibility.
Limitations
We did not include individuals with OCD.
Conclusions
Since responsibility did not influence the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables, findings are consistent with the idea that automatization remains a plausible explanation of the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables in individuals with OCD.
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.