Reappraising beliefs about losing control: An experimental investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Beliefs about losing control over one's thoughts, emotions, behaviours, and/or bodily functions have been shown to cause obsessive-compulsive symptoms. The cognitive model of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) suggests that catastrophic misappraisals of intrusions will lessen if underlying maladaptive beliefs are effectively reduced. The primary aim of this study was to experimentally investigate whether preexisting negative appraisals about losing control could be reduced by reappraising a previous perceived loss of control. METHODS: A sample of (n = 52) undergraduate participants underwent either a brief cognitive intervention or a control memory task. Negative appraisals about losing control and anxiety were measured before and after the manipulation. RESULTS: = .02). LIMITATIONS: The absence of an impact on anxiety may be attributed to an underpowered sample size or the lack of a more robust intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that pre-existing beliefs about losing control can be reduced via a brief cognitive reappraisal-based intervention. Findings are discussed with respect to clinical and phenomenological implications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".