The experience of leaving a valuable object: An investigation of emotional processes related to Hoarding disorder features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the core features of hoarding is a significant resistance to discarding objects, which is fueled by dysfunctional beliefs and unwarranted negative emotions that hoarders tend to feel when disposing of their possessions. To our knowledge, longitudinal studies investigating the psychological effects that people who hoard experience after separating from their valuable possessions have yet to be conducted. Our study's principal aim was to explore psychological processes that individuals with high hoarding features (n = 53; 49.1%) and individuals with low hoarding features (n = 55; 50.9%) experienced when they had to separate from a valuable possession. To do this, we evaluated participants' thoughts and feelings at several time points after they had to leave a valuable object at the University laboratory (evaluations were specifically conducted at baseline, during the week, and at the end of the week). To investigate hoarding and anxiety, as well as depressive, obsessive-compulsive, and emotional processes-related features, a mixed-method approach was employed involving self-report questionnaires, ad hoc surveys, and a daily self-monitoring schedule. Our findings showed that compared to participants with low hoarding features, participants with high hoarding traits: 1) scored higher for anxiety sensitivity, distress tolerance, and emotional dysregulation; 2) reported having more negative emotions when leaving their object; 3) had more intrusive object-related beliefs; and 4) experienced a higher frequency of negative emotions as well as a higher level of distress during the week. Both groups experienced more negative emotions in the first part of the week, which decreased as the time at which participants could receive their object back drew closer. Finally, dysfunctional beliefs about leaving a personal object (Saving Cognitions Inventory), sensitivity to anxiety (Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3), and distress tolerance (Distress Tolerance Scale) contributed to the level of discomfort that participants with higher hoarding scores reported when they had to leave their possession. These results highlight the relevance of emotional processes in the hoarding disorder framework as well as underscore the importance of assessing and treating them in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".