Doubting love: identification and stigma towards relationship obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a clinically heterogeneous condition with a variety of symptom dimensions. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of university students and the lay public to identify a lesser-known theme of obsessive-compulsive symptoms known as relationship obsessive-compulsive disorder (ROCD) and to examine factors that impact identification and stigma of this symptom subtype.Method A total of 258 participants (M = 24.1 years, SD = 7.61) completed an online survey. A series of clinical vignettes depicted hypothetical characters with ROCD, varied by symptom presentation (partner-focused, relationship-centred) and gender (female, male), as well as a contamination OCD vignette for comparison purposes.Results As expected, participants showed significantly higher misidentification rates for ROCD (88.3%) compared to the contamination vignettes (28.7%). ROCD was most often misidentified as relationship issues and worry. Although partner-focused ROCD was not misidentified more frequently than relationship-centred ROCD, partner-focused vignettes were significantly more stigmatised than relationship-centred vignettes as predicted (with the male, partner-focused vignette most stigmatised).Conclusions High levels of misidentification of ROCD may contribute to the existing lag between OCD symptom onset and proper treatment, emphasising the need for greater education and media focus on the heterogeneity 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".