Reappraising beliefs about losing control: An experimental investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. 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. In comparison to participants in the control condition, participants in the experimental condition reported a significantly greater reduction in negative appraisals about having lost control ( F (1, 50) = 10.79, p = .002, η p 2 = .18) and about losing control in the future ( F (1, 50) = 7.82, p = .007, η p 2 = .14) but not anxiety F (1, 50) = .81, p = .37, η p 2 = .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. 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. • Beliefs about losing control play a role in the maintenance OCD. • Participants received a brief intervention or a control task. • Negative appraisals about losing control decreased after the intervention. • CBT for OCD may benefit from integration of these novel reappraisal strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".