Sarah C. Jessup, Alexandra M. Adamis, Bunmi O. Olatunji
{"title":"Preliminary Examination of Sympathetic Magic as a Psychological Endophenotype for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder","authors":"Sarah C. Jessup, Alexandra M. Adamis, Bunmi O. Olatunji","doi":"10.1016/j.beth.2024.04.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although sympathetic magic (SM) beliefs (i.e., irrational understanding of contagion transmission) are observed in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), it is unclear if such beliefs are psychological endophenotypes. Furthermore, predictors of SM beliefs in OCD remain unknown. Accordingly, the present study examined whether SM beliefs function as an endophenotype for OCD and whether perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD) contributes to SM beliefs. A sample of 30 individuals with OCD, 26 first-degree relatives, and 25 age-matched healthy controls completed self-report questionnaires and a SM task where we touched a clean pencil to a “contaminated” toilet, and rated the degree to which the pencil was contaminated. A second pencil was touched to the first pencil and was then rated. This process was continued for 12 pencils (12 degrees of removal from contagion). Results revealed no significant differences in the extent to which the three groups perceived a “chain of contagion” (i.e., contamination slopes) for the successive degrees of removal from the original contagion. However, the OCD group reported significantly less contamination reduction on the task, a group difference that was mediated by PVD. These findings suggest that although SM beliefs may not be an OCD endophenotype, such beliefs may derive from a PVD.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48359,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Therapy","volume":"56 1","pages":"Pages 83-94"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424000534","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Although sympathetic magic (SM) beliefs (i.e., irrational understanding of contagion transmission) are observed in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), it is unclear if such beliefs are psychological endophenotypes. Furthermore, predictors of SM beliefs in OCD remain unknown. Accordingly, the present study examined whether SM beliefs function as an endophenotype for OCD and whether perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD) contributes to SM beliefs. A sample of 30 individuals with OCD, 26 first-degree relatives, and 25 age-matched healthy controls completed self-report questionnaires and a SM task where we touched a clean pencil to a “contaminated” toilet, and rated the degree to which the pencil was contaminated. A second pencil was touched to the first pencil and was then rated. This process was continued for 12 pencils (12 degrees of removal from contagion). Results revealed no significant differences in the extent to which the three groups perceived a “chain of contagion” (i.e., contamination slopes) for the successive degrees of removal from the original contagion. However, the OCD group reported significantly less contamination reduction on the task, a group difference that was mediated by PVD. These findings suggest that although SM beliefs may not be an OCD endophenotype, such beliefs may derive from a PVD.
期刊介绍:
Behavior Therapy is a quarterly international journal devoted to the application of the behavioral and cognitive sciences to the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of psychopathology and related clinical problems. It is intended for mental health professionals and students from all related disciplines who wish to remain current in these areas and provides a vehicle for scientist-practitioners and clinical scientists to report the results of their original empirical research. Although the major emphasis is placed upon empirical research, methodological and theoretical papers as well as evaluative reviews of the literature will also be published. Controlled single-case designs and clinical replication series are welcome.