The role of feared possible selves in the relationship between inferential confusion and obsessive‐compulsive symptoms: A replication and extension in a clinical sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The feared possible self refers to an imagined version of self that one is afraid of being or becoming. Previous evidence has shown that dysfunctional reasoning (i.e., inferential confusion) is associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) symptoms, which is partially mediated by a feared self. However, the evidence is reliant on non-clinical samples and a general measure of the feared self. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, the current study attempted to replicate and extend this literature in a sample clinically diagnosed with OCD (n = 350) to assess the pathway from inferential confusion to OCD symptoms when feared self is accounted for as a mediator, particularly the individual dimensions of feared self (i.e., corrupted, culpable, and malformed feared selves). Participants completed a structured clinical interview for DSM-5, as well as measures of inferential confusion (Dysfunctional Reasoning Processes Task), obsessive beliefs, feared self, OCD symptoms, and psychological distress. RESULTS: Inferential confusion directly, and indirectly through the feared corrupted self, affected OCD symptoms, even after adjusting for obsessive beliefs, psychological distress, and comorbidity. However, the feared culpable and malformed selves did not play a role in this pathway. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores that the feared corrupted self links inferential confusion to OCD symptoms, translating to the need to consider both dysfunctional reasoning processes and this specific feared self in clinical settings when treating OCD. Furthermore, the study provides more support for the inference-based approach (IBA) to 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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".