The Occurrence of and Distress From Pathogenic Beliefs: Examining Pathways From Childhood Adversity to Psychopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pathogenic beliefs are dysfunctional beliefs that impede the pursuit of adaptive goals, which have been shown as key pathways between early childhood trauma and psychopathology. This study examined whether the occurrence of pathogenic beliefs and the distress from having pathogenic beliefs, which were assessed through the latest version of the pathogenic belief scale (PBS-21) separately, would both mediate the childhood adversity-outcome relationship, and whether reactivity of pathogenic beliefs (standardized difference between distress and occurrence) moderates them. METHODS: A total of 390 adult participants with prior psychotherapy experience were recruited from the United Kingdom online. Participants completed self-report measures assessing perceived adverse parenting, psychopathology (depression, anxiety, general distress and interpersonal problems) and pathogenic beliefs (occurrence, distress and reactivity). RESULTS: Both occurrence and distress of pathogenic beliefs fully mediated the relationship between adverse parenting and depressive/anxiety symptoms and general distress, and partially mediated interpersonal problems. Reactivity significantly moderated the pathway from adverse parenting to pathogenetic beliefs. Individuals who reported more adverse parenting and were categorized as having higher reactivity were more likely to develop pathogenic beliefs and experience greater psychological distress. DISCUSSION: These findings align with prior research showing that pathogenic beliefs are key in the association between childhood adversity and psychopathology. The study supports the validity of the PBS-21 and demonstrates the value of assessing the occurrence of pathogenic beliefs and the distress from having these beliefs separately. Reactivity to pathogenic beliefs may serve as a clinically meaningful marker for identifying individuals with resilience and tailoring interventions accordingly.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".