Further analyses of appraisals of losing control and other OCD-related cognitions: A quasi-experimental investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive models of OCD posit that dysfunctional beliefs contribute to the maintenance of symptoms. In addition to well-established belief domains, beliefs about losing control has been identified as a novel cognitive domain which may influence OCD phenomena, including other dysfunctional beliefs. However, the exact nature of these relationships and whether such relationships are influenced by OCD symptoms is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between appraisals of losing control and other OCD-relevant appraisals in individuals scoring high and low on OCD symptoms. 137 participants completed a vignette task describing hypothetical scenarios relevant to OCD (doubting and aggressive thoughts) which varied in the level of losing control (high vs. low) and answered questions to assess other OCD-relevant appraisals. There was a significant main effect of losing control appraisals on other OCD-relevant appraisals in the aggressive thought vignettes but not in the doubting vignettes. OCD symptoms had a significant effect on OCD-relevant appraisals in both the aggressive thought and doubting vignettes. There were no significant interactions. Appraisals of losing control did not significantly differ in the doubting vignettes suggesting the impact of the manipulation may have been limited. Findings suggest that both appraisals of losing control and level of OCD symptoms may be associated with other OCD-relevant appraisals, however these effects may be independent of one another. • Manipulation of losing control was effective in aggressive thought vignettes. • Manipulation of losing control was not effective in doubting vignettes. • Losing control only associated with OCD appraisals in aggressive thought vignettes. • OCD symptoms were associated with OCD appraisals regardless of vignette type. • OCD symptoms and losing control did not interact to influence OCD appraisals.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".