OCD, death anxiety, and attachment: what’s love got to do with it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Death anxiety has been empirically implicated in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Research has shown that secure attachments appear to protect against fear of death, and are also associated with reduced risk of mental illness. However, few studies have investigated the moderating effect of attachment style in the relationship between death anxiety and OCD. AIMS: The present study sought to explore whether attachment style moderates the relationship between death anxiety and OCD symptoms among a treatment-seeking sample of individuals diagnosed with OCD. METHOD: Following a structured diagnostic interview, a number of measures were administered to 48 participants. These included the Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale, Vancouver Obsessive Compulsive Inventory, and Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised. RESULTS: As expected, death anxiety was a strong predictor of OCD severity, and other markers of psychopathology. However, contrary to hypotheses, neither anxious nor avoidant attachment style moderated the association between fear of death and OCD severity. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings add further support to the role of death anxiety in OCD. Given the absence of a moderating effect of attachment between death fears and OCD severity, it is possible that this proposed buffer against death anxiety may potentially be insufficient in the presence of this disorder. Further research is needed to clarify whether attachment style may moderate the relationship between death anxiety and symptom severity in other 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".