Comparing the Efficacy of Defusion, Self-as-Context, and Distraction Strategies for Getting Rid of Possessions.

IF 0.6 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Clarissa W Ong, Carina L Terry, Michael P Twohig
{"title":"Comparing the Efficacy of Defusion, Self-as-Context, and Distraction Strategies for Getting Rid of Possessions.","authors":"Clarissa W Ong,&nbsp;Carina L Terry,&nbsp;Michael P Twohig","doi":"10.1891/JCPSY-D-20-00010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interventions for hoarding disorder need to target difficulty letting go of items to reduce clutter and improve functioning. The present studies were designed to test the efficacy of brief cognitive interventions for letting go of possessions and self-report outcomes. Participants (<i>N</i> = 67 in Study 1; <i>N</i> = 110 in Study 2) received training on defusion or distraction in Study 1 and defusion, self-as-context, or distraction in Study 2 and completed measures at pre- and postintervention. Study 1 found no differences between defusion and distraction on saving, self-rated discomfort with discarding, or perceived importance of the target belonging. In Study 2, participants provided most favorable feedback for self-as-context compared to defusion and distraction, indicating promise of this strategy. Nonetheless, findings from both studies overall provide minimal support for use of present procedures to reduce saving. Limitations include use of nonclinical samples and single-item variables to obtain participant feedback.</p>","PeriodicalId":47207,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy","volume":"34 3","pages":"242-260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1891/JCPSY-D-20-00010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Interventions for hoarding disorder need to target difficulty letting go of items to reduce clutter and improve functioning. The present studies were designed to test the efficacy of brief cognitive interventions for letting go of possessions and self-report outcomes. Participants (N = 67 in Study 1; N = 110 in Study 2) received training on defusion or distraction in Study 1 and defusion, self-as-context, or distraction in Study 2 and completed measures at pre- and postintervention. Study 1 found no differences between defusion and distraction on saving, self-rated discomfort with discarding, or perceived importance of the target belonging. In Study 2, participants provided most favorable feedback for self-as-context compared to defusion and distraction, indicating promise of this strategy. Nonetheless, findings from both studies overall provide minimal support for use of present procedures to reduce saving. Limitations include use of nonclinical samples and single-item variables to obtain participant feedback.

比较消除、自我情境和分散注意力策略对摆脱财产的效果。
囤积症的干预措施需要针对难以放下物品的问题,以减少杂乱和改善功能。目前的研究旨在测试短暂的认知干预对放弃财产和自我报告结果的有效性。研究1受试者(N = 67);研究2中N = 110)在研究1中接受了融合或分心训练,在研究2中接受了融合、自我情境或分心训练,并在干预前和干预后完成了测量。研究1发现,在保存、自我评估的丢弃不适或感知目标归属的重要性方面,分散和分散没有差异。在研究2中,与分散注意力和分散注意力相比,参与者提供了最有利的自我情境反馈,表明该策略的前景。尽管如此,这两项研究的结果总体上对使用现行程序减少储蓄提供了最小的支持。局限性包括使用非临床样本和单项变量来获得参与者反馈。
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
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy is devoted to advancing the science and clinical practice of cognitive-behavior therapy. This includes a range of interventions including cognitive therapy, rational-emotive behavior therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness approaches. The journal publishes empirical papers, including case studies, along with review articles, papers that integrate cognitive-behavior therapy with other systems, and practical "how to" articles.
×
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