Vulnerability factors in OCD symptoms: cross‐cultural comparisons between Turkish and Canadian samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent findings have suggested some potential psychological vulnerability factors for development of obsessive‐compulsive (OC) symptoms, including cognitive factors of appraisal and thought control, religiosity, self‐esteem and personality characteristics such as neuroticism. Studies demonstrating these associations usually come from Western cultures, but there may be cultural differences relevant to these vulnerability factors and OC symptoms. The present study examined the relationship between putative vulnerability factors and OC symptoms by comparing non‐clinical samples from Turkey and Canada, two countries with quite different cultural characteristics. The findings revealed some common correlates such as neuroticism and certain types of metacognition, including appraisals of responsibility/threat estimation and perfectionism/need for certainty, as well as thought–action fusion. However, culture‐specific factors were also indicated in the type of thought control participants used. For OC disorder symptoms, Turkish participants were more likely to utilize worry and thought suppression, while Canadian participants tended to use self‐punishment more frequently. The association with common factors supports the cross‐cultural validity of some factors, whereas unique factors suggest cultural features that may be operative in cognitive processes relevant to OC symptoms. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: • Despite cross‐cultural validity in the cognitive accounts for OCD, there are some evidences implying the impact of cultural characteristics on some cognitive factors across different cultures. Thus, it is important for clinicians who work with people from different cultural backgrounds to be vigilant for possible variations in the cognitive processes during psychotherapy and psychological assessment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".