Safety Behaviour Enhances the Acceptability of Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compulsive washing and contamination fears are among the most common symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Research suggests that exposure and response prevention (ERP) is effective for OCD. However, ERP is prone to dropouts and refusals, and a substantial proportion of clients therefore do not receive the care they need. A proposed solution involves the judicious use of safety behaviour to enhance the acceptability of exposure-based interventions. The current study aimed to test this proposed solution. Participants were 70 undergraduate students who completed two exposure exercises for contamination fear, one with safety behaviour and one without. Participants then rated the acceptability of the two exercises. Exposure with safety behaviour (ESB) was rated as significantly more acceptable than ERP. Furthermore, subjective fear ratings were lower and behavioural approach to a series of contaminants was greater in the ESB condition. Results demonstrated the acceptability-enhancing potential of safety behaviour in exposure, and are discussed in terms of both theoretical and practical aspects of safety behaviour, exposure, and evidence-based interventions for anxiety disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".