Obsessive-compulsive symptoms moderate the effect of contamination motion on disgust intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceiving a threat as constantly evolving, coming closer and escalating quickly can result in looming vulnerability (LV). LV may be a distal factor in contamination-based OCD (C-OCD) influencing disorder-specific mechanisms such as disgust. The aim of this study was to gain knowledge about three components of LV: speed, proximity and acceleration, and their influence on the relationship between disgust and C-OCD symptoms. METHODS: 119 participants with subclinical C-OCD symptoms imagined four out of seven versions of a disgusting bathroom scene, varying in speed (slow/fast), proximity (farther away/closer), and acceleration (constant/exponential). These six dynamic conditions were compared to a static description. T-tests and a Bayesian multilevel model were used to assess differences in perceived dynamics of threat, disgust responses, and to examine the moderating role of C-OCD symptoms on responses to the experimental conditions. RESULTS: Threats in the dynamic conditions were perceived as significantly faster, closer, and more accelerated than in the static version. A difference within dynamic dimensions only emerged between the farther away and closer conditions. The Bayesian model showed a moderating effect of C-OCD symptoms leading to higher levels of disgust in the dynamic conditions, but not within the static condition. LIMITATIONS: Without baseline disgust and LV measures, the specific contributions to disgust and LV for each condition remain unclear. CONCLUSION: By showing that imagining dynamic contamination only elicits stronger disgust in individuals with higher C-OCD symptoms, the results support the idea of LV as a distal factor influencing symptom-maintaining factors in C-OCD such as disgust.
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) | 0.000 | 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".