Preliminary Psychometric Evidence for Distinct Affective and Cognitive Mechanisms Mediating Contamination Aversion

Adams, Thomas G.; Cisler, Josh M.; Brady, Robert E.; Lohr, Jeffrey M.; Olatunji, Bunmi O.

doi:10.1007/s10862-013-9343-8

Cited by 15 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study has the advantage that it compared responses to direct, indirect, and harmful contaminants, whereas most studies are limited to examining responses to direct contaminants. Although these categories of contaminants are not always mutually exclusive and a contaminant may have properties of more than one category (Adams et al, 2013), it is still important to differentiate and examine responses to prototypical contaminants in these categories. People with the contamination subtype of OCD have a wide and varied range of items which they consider contaminating (Prabhu et al, 2013), and examining response characteristics to certain categories of contaminants may enhance our understanding of the heterogeneity of triggers and behaviors in OCD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the cognitive component involves an appraisal of the threat which produces a fear of contamination (Dorfan & Woody, 2006). The appraisal is influenced by many cognitive factors, including knowledge and estimation about the threat posed (Adams et al, 2013). Estimations about the level of threat include the perceived likelihood and perceived severity of contamination if contact occurs (Riskind, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, an attentional bias involving a difficulty disengaging attention from a threat (i.e., delayed disengagement) is thought to function through the cognitive component and shown to predict contamination ratings of pencils throughout the entire chain of contagion (Cisler et al, 2011). Similarly, priming with information about threat predicted contamination ratings of pencils later in the chain (Adams et al, 2013). These findings were thought to suggest that the affective component responds predominantly to items directly associated to a threat (i.e., the initial contaminant and the first few pencils), whereas the cognitive component responds predominantly to items indirectly or less proximal to a threat (i.e., the latter pencils).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Differences in emotions and cognitions experienced in contamination aversion

Rouel

Stevenson

Milne-Home

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current model of contamination aversion suggests that it has distinct affective and cognitive components that interact to respond to threats. The affective component involves disgust and responds preferentially to direct contaminants (e.g., feces). The cognitive component involves obsessive beliefs and responds preferentially to indirect contaminants (e.g., money). This study examined characteristics of the two components by comparing emotional and cognitive responses to different contaminants. In total, 47 participants completed behavioral avoidance tasks with direct, indirect, and harmful contaminants. Participants rated their disgust, fear of contamination, and threat estimation while in contact with each contaminant. The contaminants produced different emotional and cognitive responses, suggesting the differential involvement of affective and cognitive factors depending on the type of threat. Additionally, it was found that disgust did not habituate over time in contact with contaminants, whereas fear of contamination and threat estimation appeared to decline. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in emotions and cognitions experienced in contamination aversion

Rouel

Stevenson

Milne-Home

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, from theoretical and empirical perspectives, contamination-related OCD has been associated with different cognitive and emotional variables. Studies theoretically and/or empirically integrating those variables (e.g., Adams, Cisler, Brady, Lohr, & Olatunji, 2013) suggest that neither general beliefs nor disgust experiences may be sufficient for the development/ maintenance of contamination-related OCD.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional and Cognitive Variables Associated with Contamination-Related Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different variables have been associated with the development/ maintenance of contamination-related obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), although the relevance of these factors has not been clearly established. The present study aimed to analyze the relevance and specificity of these variables. Forty-five women with high scores on obsessive-compulsive contamination symptoms (n = 16) or checking symptoms (n = 15), or non-clinical scores (n = 14) participated in a behavioral approach/avoidance task (BAT) with a contamination-OCD stimulus. Vulnerability variables and participants' emotional, cognitive, physiological and behavioral responses to the BAT were appraised. Results show that fear of illness was a relevant vulnerability variable specific to contamination participants (p = .001; η2 p = .291). Contamination participants responded with significantly higher subjective disgust (p =.001; η2 p = .269), anxiety (p = .001; η2 p = .297), urge to wash (p < .001; η2 p = 370), threat from emotion (p < .001; η2 p = .338) and contamination severity (p = .002; η2 p = .260) appraisals, and with lower behavioral approach (p = .008; η2 p = .208) than the other two groups. Moreover, contamination participants showed lower heart rate acceleration (p = .046; η2 p = .170) and higher contamination likelihood appraisals (p < .001; η2 p = .342) than the non-clinical group. Urge to wash was predicted by state disgust (R 2 change = .346) and threat from emotion (R 2 change = .088). These responses were predicted by general anxiety sensitivity (R 2 change = .161), disgust propensity (R 2 change = .255) and fear of illness (R 2 change = .116), but not by other vulnerability variables such as dysfunctional beliefs about thoughts (Responsibility and Overestimation of threat) or disgust sensitivity. State disgust, threat from disgust, anxiety sensitivity and fear of illness were found to be the most relevant variables in contamination symptoms.

show abstract

“…Contamination Aversion Scale (CAS; Adams et al, 2013). The CAS was administered to assess participants' level of trait contamination aversion.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

If a Safety Aid is Present, There Must be Danger: The Paradoxical Effects of Hand Sanitizer during a Contamination Exposure Task

Blakey

Deacon

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptions of danger often arise in the context of feared threat cues, but individuals also rely on other heuristics that lead them to infer danger in ambiguous situations. For example, individuals may interpret their own anxiety or safetyseeking behaviors as indicators of threat. Another potential source of danger information is the mere availability of safety aids in the environment. Although assumed to be helpful, safety aids might paradoxically elicit, rather than alleviate, anxiety. The present study was designed to assess the degree to which concern-relevant safety aids exacerbate distress. Participants (N = 71) completed several self-report measures and engaged in a contaminationrelated behavioral avoidance task (BAT) in the presence or absence of a 2L hand sanitizer dispenser. Results showed that participants higher in trait contamination aversion and in the presence of hand sanitizer endorsed greater inferences of danger, hypervigilance, peak BAT anxiety and disgust, BAT avoidance, and urges to wash following the BAT. Theoretical and clinical implications of the paradoxical inference of danger from the presence of safety aids are discussed.

show abstract

Preliminary Psychometric Evidence for Distinct Affective and Cognitive Mechanisms Mediating Contamination Aversion

Cited by 15 publications

References 66 publications

Differences in emotions and cognitions experienced in contamination aversion

Differences in emotions and cognitions experienced in contamination aversion

Emotional and Cognitive Variables Associated with Contamination-Related Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms

If a Safety Aid is Present, There Must be Danger: The Paradoxical Effects of Hand Sanitizer during a Contamination Exposure Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About