Interpersonal Aspects of Responsibility and Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is associated with an inflated sense of responsibility to prevent harm. Increasingly, it has been recognized that inflated responsibility is a complex phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to examine how interpersonal aspects of responsibility are related to symptoms of OCD. Three new valid and reliable scales assessing beliefs about other people's responsibility, comparative beliefs about responsibility, beliefs about the allocation of responsibility, and beliefs about how others allocate responsibility were used to evaluate interpersonal influences on responsibility. Whereas personal beliefs about responsibility were related to all OCD symptom types, it appears that beliefs about other people's responsibility were related to only a subgroup of symptom types. Furthermore, the belief that one is more responsible than others predicts OC symptoms beyond commonly assessed personal beliefs about responsibility. Finally, individuals with OC symptoms tend to allocate more responsibility to themselves than others, compared to individuals without OC symptoms, despite the fact that individuals with OC symptoms believe that others tend to allocate responsibility equitably. Results are discussed in terms of cognitive models of OCD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".