MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124817025 · doi:10.1002/ijop.12041

The mediating role of disgust sensitivity and thought‐action fusion between religiosity and obsessive compulsive symptoms

2014· article· en· W2124817025 on OpenAlexaff
Müjgan İnözü, Fulya Ozcanli Ulukut, Gökçe Ergün, Gillian M. Alcolado

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisgustReligiosityPsychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyAnger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychological theories of obsessions and compulsions have long recognised that strict religious codes and moral standards might promote thought-action fusion (TAF) appraisals. These appraisals have been implicated in the transformation of normally occurring intrusions into clinically distressing obsessions. Furthermore, increased disgust sensitivity has also been reported to be associated with obsessive compulsive (OC) symptoms. No research, however, has investigated the mediating roles of TAF and disgust sensitivity between religiosity and OC symptoms. This study was composed of 244 undergraduate students who completed measures of OC symptoms, TAF, disgust sensitivity, religiosity and negative effect. Analyses revealed that the relationship between religiosity and OC symptoms was mediated by TAF and disgust sensitivity. More importantly, the mediating role of TAF was not different across OC symptom subtypes, whereas the mediating role of disgust sensitivity showed different patterns across OC symptom subtypes. These findings indicate that the tendency for highly religious Muslims to experience greater OC symptoms is related to their heightened beliefs about disgust sensitivity and the importance of thoughts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PsychologySame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207