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
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.
失控和其他强迫症相关认知评估的进一步分析:一项准实验调查
背景和目的强迫症的认知模型假设功能失调的信念有助于症状的维持。除了已确立的信念领域,关于失去控制的信念已被确定为一个新的认知领域,它可能影响强迫症现象,包括其他功能失调的信念。然而,这些关系的确切性质以及这种关系是否受到强迫症症状的影响尚不清楚。本研究的目的是检查在强迫症症状得分高和低的个体中,失去控制的评估和其他与强迫症相关的评估之间的关系。方法137名参与者完成了一项小短文任务,描述了与强迫症(怀疑和攻击性思想)相关的假设场景,这些场景在失去控制的程度(高与低)上有所不同,并回答了一些问题来评估其他与强迫症相关的评估。结果失控评价对其他强迫症相关评价的主效应在攻击性思维小测验中显著,在怀疑小测验中不显著。在攻击性思维和怀疑小情节中,强迫症症状对强迫症相关评价均有显著影响。没有显著的相互作用。对失控的评估在怀疑的小插曲中没有显着差异,表明操纵的影响可能是有限的。结论研究结果提示,失去控制和强迫症症状水平的评估可能与其他与强迫症相关的评估相关,但这些影响可能彼此独立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信