Differences in obsessional beliefs and emotion appraisal in obsessive compulsive symptom presentation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2011.11.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a heterogeneous condition with symptom presentation that includes contamination, harm, unacceptable thoughts, and symmetry. Researchers have begun to examine the ideographic nature of OCD symptoms to aid the development of specialized treatment approaches. Obsessional beliefs are often implicated in the development and maintenance of the disorder; however, much of the variance in symptom severity is not accounted for by these beliefs. Less attention has been paid to the role of emotions in OCD, and to date, no study has investigated beliefs about emotions (i.e., emotion appraisal) in clinical samples of OCD. In the present study, 44 participants were recruited from residential and intensive outpatient facilities and private practitioners specializing in OCD treatment. Participants completed measures of OCD severity, obsessional beliefs and emotion appraisal. Results indicated that both obsessional beliefs and emotion appraisal were correlated with each of the symptom presentations to varying degrees, and severity in each of the subtypes was predicted by a different model. Implications for cognitive and emotional conceptualizations of OCD are discussed.

Introduction

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating disorder characterized by recurring distressing thoughts or images (obsessions), and behaviors intended to reduce distress, including repetitive overt or mental rituals (compulsions; American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2000) and avoidance. The relationship between obsessions and compulsions is such that obsessions evoke anxiety (or another state of negative affect), and compulsions are enacted to ameliorate the aversive feeling. This simplified explanation defines the struggle for many OCD sufferers; yet, OCD is a heterogeneous disorder with highly varied symptom presentation. The phenomenology of both the obsessions and compulsions is diverse. Common obsessions include fears about contamination, causing harm, neatness or exactness, and violent, sexual, or religious thoughts. Compulsions may include washing, checking, ordering, counting, and praying. In the past decade, researchers have begun to systematically investigate the differences in symptom dimensions to contribute to the development of specialized treatment approaches. The present study adds to the existing body of literature by investigating correlates and predictors of severity in four symptom presentations.

The surge in research related to the differences in OCD was initiated in part by the fact that up to 50% of individuals with OCD do not respond optimally to treatment (Baer and Minichiello, 1998, Cottraux et al., 2005, Fisher and Wells, 2005, Stanley and Turner, 1995). While there are several possible explanations for treatment “failures,” one approach to improving treatment outcomes is to target the idiographic nature of the symptoms by examining the correlates and predictors for each presentation type. While the heterogeneity of OCD is widely accepted, there is some disagreement about the content and number of categories represented. A meta-analysis of 12 factor-analytic studies representing over 2000 patients with OCD supported four consistent symptom dimensions including contamination, harm, symmetry, and hoarding (Mataix-Cols, Rosario-Campos, & Leckman, 2005). However, researchers are now conceptualizing hoarding as distinct enough to warrant its own diagnostic category (cf., Mataix-Cols et al., 2010); therefore, the present study used the classification derived by Abramowitz et al., 2010) and grouped obsessions and compulsions into the following: (1) thoughts related to contamination and washing behaviors, (2) thoughts related to responsibility for causing harm and checking behaviors, (3) thoughts related to symmetry and ordering behaviors, and (4) repulsive thoughts related to sex, religion, or violence and mental compulsions or neutralizing behaviors.

The development of self-report measures including the Padua Inventory (PI; Sanavo, 1988), the Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (OCI; Foa, Kozak, Salkovskis, Coles, & Amir, 1998) and OCI-Revised (OCI-R, Foa et al., 2002), and the Dimensional Obsessive Compulsive Scale (DOCS; Abramowitz et al., 2010) have allowed researchers to examine the differences between these psychometrically derived OCD symptom dimensions. The OCI-R and PI are frequently employed to this end; however, several differences between these measures and the DOCS suggest that the DOCS may be a more informative measure. Firstly, the DOCS assesses severity in each symptom presentation multidimensionally, by inquiring about distress, functional impairment, and frequency of symptoms. The DOCS also assesses avoidance behaviors, a core characteristic of OCD not addressed in the OCI-R or PI. Finally, consistent with the structural framework of OCD, the DOCS does not include items related to hoarding. As research on the OCD symptom dimensions expands, utilizing measures that address each component of OCD symptomology, such as the DOCS, will increase the utility of the findings.

The extant research examining the heterogeneity of OCD has largely focused on specific maladaptive beliefs, but many other factors (e.g., emotion appraisal) also may contribute to OCD development, maintenance, severity, and prognosis. Treatment-enhancing modifications are an anticipated outcome of research on the symptom dimensions, and broadening the scope of possible factors related to each subtype will further inform treatment innovations. A review of obsessional beliefs and emotions as they relate to OCD will provide the context for the present study.

The appraisal theory of obsessions dominates OCD research and practice (Clark, 2004). These theories (Rachman, 1997, Rachman, 1998, Salkovskis, 1985) posit that the interpretation of thoughts significantly contributes to the development of obsessions. More recently, belief-based models of OCD have been theorized (Rachman, 2002, Rachman, 2004) and OCD researchers have distinguished three obsessional belief domains: over responsibility and overestimation of threat (RT), perfectionism and intolerance of uncertainty (PC), and importance of thoughts and need to control thoughts (ICT; Obsessive-Compulsive Cognitions Working Group [OCCWG], 2005). There is empirical evidence to suggest that these belief domains are associated with OCD; however, the results are not completely conclusive and much of the variance in symptom severity is not accounted for by obsessional beliefs (cf., Julien, O’Connor, & Aardema, 2007).

Clinical observation alludes to specific relationships between belief domains and OCD symptom dimensions (e.g., over-responsibility and harm subtype), and limited empirical evidence provides support for the specificity of belief domains in the symptom dimensions (Manos et al., 2010, Wheaton et al., 2010). While there is considerable evidence to support the role of obsessional beliefs, the lack of a coherent model, varied empirical findings in clinical samples, and unaccounted variance in severity are causing researchers to look beyond cognitive appraisals to explain the OCD symptomology.

Anxiety, a universal experience with important protective functions, becomes problematic when the cue to danger is inproportionate to the actual threat in the environment. Calamari, Rector, Woodard, Cohen, and Chik (2008) found that anxiety sensitivity (AS; i.e., the fear of anxiety-related bodily sensations) contributed to models predicting OCD severity, beyond the cognitive appraisal constructs described above. The same study found that the relationship between AS and OCD symptom severity varied across symptom dimensions. Obviously, experiences of anxiety play a central role in anxiety disorders! However, there is evidence to suggest that anxiety is experienced with some variability in OCD (Nutt & Malizia, 2006) and that it may not be the primary feeling, or the only threatening feeling, experienced by individuals with this disorder. Rather, one's relationship with their emotions in general, including other aversive emotions may also be implicated in problematic anxiety. Several emotions have been theorized as being fairly universal, including fear, disgust, and guilt (Power, 2006), and these emotions are suspected to be relevant to OCD etiology and phenomenology as well.

Disgust is a universal guttural response characterized by withdrawal from repulsive stimuli, such as animal and food products (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Individuals experience disgust to varying degrees and greater disgust sensitivity has been related to OCD symptom presentation and severity (Berle and Phillips, 2006, Olatunji et al., 2005, Tolin et al., 2006). In addition to elicitation by physical stimuli, Borg, Lieberman, and Kiehl (2008) identified that disgust may be elicited by incest and non-sexual immoral acts (e.g., theft and murder). This is consistent with cross cultural research findings that suggest a relationship between disgust and moral judgment (e.g., Haidt et al., 1997, Schnall et al., 2008). Research related to disgust and OCD has increased in recent years; yet this body of research is primarily related to contamination symptom presentations. Evidence supporting disgust related to immoral acts suggests that disgust may be implicated in the harm and unacceptable thoughts symptom dimensions as well. The appraisal of disgust experiences has yet to be examined in OCD, warranting an investigation.

Feelings of guilt have been related to greater symptom severity and poorer treatment prognosis in OCD (cf., Shapiro & Stewart, 2011). However, much of the research on guilt has primarily focused on the relationship between guilt feelings and beliefs about responsibility. Salkovskis and Forrester (2002) explain that over-responsibility is derived from the threat of physical or moral danger, a primary goal of preventing a negative outcome, and an inflated belief that one has the power to prevent the aversive outcome. Guilt is a natural response for an individual who feels wholly responsible for a negative outcome, particularly if they perceive their actions as morally unjust (Mancini & Gangemi, 2004). These findings blur the lines between feeling guilt and beliefs about responsibility and the fused relationship between these constructs may lend to a greater focus on the cognitive construct of responsibility over the emotional construct of guilt in both research and clinical practice. Examining threat from guilt in the various symptom presentations may help clarify when guilt is problematic in individuals with OCD, independent of feelings of responsibility.

In addition to these emotions, many individuals with OCD may have trouble clarifying their emotions, and naming their internal experiences (i.e., alexithymia), and these individuals may report experiencing “not just right” feelings (NJRFs). Alexithymia is a personality construct characterized by difficulties in understanding, processing, and describing emotions (Sifneos, 1973). Research findings have suggested an association between alexithymia and OCD severity (Bankier et al., 2001, Rufer et al., 2004, Rufer et al., 2006), and individuals with these difficulties may describe their experiences as “not just right,” when they are unable to articulate their specific experience. Additionally, OCD has been conceptualized as an inability to put closure to an experience (Reed, 1985), as exemplified by an individual who washes his hands until they “feel clean.” Similarly, many individuals with OCD describe needing to perform compulsions until they “feel right.” While research suggests that these feelings are distressing (Coles et al., 2005), it is not clear how these unnamed feelings compare to experiences of anxiety, disgust, and guilt. This forms the basis for examining threat from NJRFs in each of the OCD symptom dimensions.

Barlow (1991) suggested that anxiety disorders may be characterized as ailments of emotion processing. Recently, the role of emotion regulation has received attention in the research on anxiety and mood disorders (cf., Allen & Barlow, 2009). This research indicates that individuals with anxiety, including OCD, engage in maladaptive strategies (e.g., suppression) to regulate the frequency and experiences of emotions. There are differences in the ease with which individuals elicit, respond to, and recover from emotions, as well as individual differences in acceptance of emotions (i.e., judgment as appropriate, tolerable, or logical; Amstadter, 2008). Over-two decades of research on meta-emotion across disciplines suggests that there are individual differences in the way in which people evaluate their emotions. Mayer and Gaschke (1988) explain that emotion is experienced first directly and then reflectively. That is, the emotion is experienced, and one's reflection on the emotion causes a secondary experience of emotion. Bartsch, Vorderer, Mangold, and Viehoff (2008) suggest that meta-processes (e.g., appraisal) influence the way in which emotions are expressed and regulated. Ultimately, the way in which appraises their emotions may impact the use of maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in OCD. However, elucidating how emotions are appraised and whether emotion appraisal is related to symptom severity in OCD is a necessary first step.

Experiential avoidance, the avoidance of aversive private experiences including thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations (Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996), has begun to receive attention in the OCD literature, and the relationship between overall experiential avoidance and OCD symptomology is inconclusive (e.g., Abramowitz et al., 2009, Briggs and Price, 2009, Manos et al., 2010). Some have suggested that an overall measure of experiential avoidance may be too broad to reflect symptoms in specific disorders (Manos et al.). Therefore, it may be more useful to investigate the appraisal of specific emotions rather than the appraisal of internal experiences in general. McCubbin and Sampson (2006) investigated the extent to which an individual feels that having a certain emotion (e.g., fear/anxiety) is dangerous (i.e., feeling threat from emotions). They posited that this trait characteristic is related to heightened awareness of danger, attempts to avoid emotions, and the use of maladaptive methods to cope with unpleasant emotions (e.g., performing compulsions). Their results found that threat from specific emotions significantly predicted obsessionality in a non-clinical sample, but this construct has yet to be examined in clinical populations. The present study examined individuals' appraisal of anxiety, disgust, guilt, and NJRFs, as well as the frequency with which these emotions are experienced in a clinical sample.

The current study contributes to the line of research investigating OCD symptom dimensions by exploring obsessional beliefs and emotion appraisal in four OCD symptom dimensions: contamination, harm, unacceptable thoughts, and symmetry. Based on previous findings (Julien et al., 2007, Wheaton et al., 2010), we predicted that each subtype would be partially predicted by at least one obsessional belief; (1) the contamination subtype would be associated with beliefs about responsibility/overestimation of threat and perceptions of threat from anxiety, disgust, and guilt; (2) the harm subtype would also be most closely associated with beliefs about responsibility/overestimation of threat and threat from anxiety and guilt; (3) the unacceptable thoughts subtype would be associated with beliefs about importance and need to control thoughts and threat from anxiety, disgust, and guilt; and (4) the symmetry subtype would be associated with beliefs about perfectionism/intolerance of uncertainty and threat from NJRFs. However, as this is the first study to examine threat from emotion, the investigation is somewhat exploratory, and perceived threat from each emotion was examined in relation to each of the symptom dimensions.

Section snippets

Data collection

A multi-site recruitment strategy was implemented in order to obtain a wide representation of symptom severity. Participants were recruited from residential and intensive outpatient programs in Texas and Maryland and from outpatient treatment providers in Texas, Kansas, and Wisconsin. Participants included 44 adults receiving residential (RES; n=20), intensive outpatient (IOP; n=10) or outpatient treatment (OP; n=14) for OCD. Diagnoses of OCD were determined by treating clinicians, all of whom

Overall symptom severity

Symptom severity data are presented in Table 1. Overall, the sample reported a moderate level of severity. Y-BOCS-SR scores ranged from 10 (mild) to 38 (extreme), with an average severity score of 21.18 (SD=6.95). Mean severity scores for each of the three groups were as follows: RES=24.15 (sd=6.52), IOP=21.50 (sd=8.34), and OP=16.71 (sd=3.75). Each group in the current sample had an average severity score of 16 or higher, indicating clinical levels of severity for each group. An analysis of

Discussion

OCD is a heterogeneous disorder with varied symptom presentation, and the differences in OCD have received increased attention in recent years. The current study contributed to the line of research on OCD symptom presentation by examining obsessional beliefs and emotion appraisal as they related to distress from four OCD symptom dimensions: contamination, harm, unacceptable thoughts, and symmetry. Results indicated that symptoms in each of the four symptom dimensions were predicted by a

Role of funding sources

The study was not funded by an external grant. The authors are solely responsible for the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, and the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Contributors

Authors Smith, Wetterneck, and Hart designed the study. Author Smith conducted the literature searches, provided summaries of previous research, and collected the data. Data collection was conducted primarily at the Houston OCD Program, an institution headed by Author Bjorgvinsson. Authors Smith and Wetterneck conducted the statistical analysis. Author Smith wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References (55)

  • R.A. McCubbin et al.

    The relationship between obsessive-compulsive symptoms and appraisals of emotional states

    Journal of Anxiety Disorders

    (2006)
  • D. McKay

    Treating disgust reactions in contamination-based obsessive-compulsive disorder

    Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • Obsessive-compulsive Cognitions Working Group

    Psychometric validation of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire and the Interpretation of Intrusions Inventory—Part 2: Factor analyses and testing of a brief version

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (2005)
  • B. Olatunji et al.

    The structure of disgust: Domain specificity in relation to contamination ideation and excessive washing

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (2005)
  • S. Rachman

    Pollution of the mind

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (1994)
  • S. Rachman

    A cognitive theory of obsessions

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (1997)
  • S. Rachman

    A cognitive theory of obsessions: Elaborations

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (1998)
  • S.S. Rachman

    OCD in and out of the clinic

    Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

    (2004)
  • M. Rufer et al.

    A prospective long-term follow-up study of alexithymia in obsessive-compulsive disorder

    Comprehensive Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • P.M. Salkovskis

    Obsessional-compulsive problems: A cognitive-behavioural analysis

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (1985)
  • M.A. Stanley et al.

    Current status of pharmacological behavioral treatment obsessive-compulsive disorder

    Behavior Therapy

    (1995)
  • G. Steketee et al.

    The Yale–Brown Obsessive-compulsive Scale: Interview versus self-report

    Behavior Research and Therapy

    (1996)
  • D. Tolin et al.

    Disgust sensitivity and obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a non-clinical sample

    Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • M.G. Wheaton et al.

    The relationship between obsessive beliefs and symptom dimensions in obsessive-compulsive disorder

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (2010)
  • J.S. Abramowitz et al.

    Assessment of obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions: Development and evaluation of the dimensional obsessive-compulsive scale

    Psychological Assessment

    (2010)
  • L.B. Allen et al.

    Relationship of exposure to clinically irrelevant emotion cues and obsessive-compulsive symptoms

    Behavior Modification

    (2009)
  • American Psychiatric Association

    Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders IV-TR

    (2000)
  • Cited by (39)

    • A New Scrupulosity Scale for the Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS): Validation With Clinical and Nonclinical Samples

      2021, Behavior Therapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Responses correlate to obsessional beliefs, with higher scores in anger being the strongest predictor of “obsessionality.” For both samples, only subscales of Anger, Anxiety, Guilt, and Disgust were used as these have been theorized to relate most closely to OCD (McCubbin & Sampson, 2006; Smith et al., 2012). This scale has shown acceptable internal consistency, excellent divergent validity and some test-retest reliability, and excellent internal consistency in our sample (α = .954).

    • Technology supported mindfulness for obsessive compulsive disorder: The role of obsessive beliefs

      2021, Journal of Anxiety Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      These higher order belief categories (assessed using the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire (OBQ)) can be collapsed into three categories: a) OBQ I/C (importance/control of thoughts), b) OBQ P/C (perfectionism/certainty), and c) OBQ R/T (responsibility/threat) (OCCWG, 2005). Researchers have demonstrated associations between OBQ factors and OCD symptoms (e.g., Brakoulias et al., 2014; Colleo, Hart, Björgvinsson, & Stanley, 2010; Smith, Wetterneck, Hart, Short, & Bjorgvinsson, 2012; Tolin et al., 2008; Wheaton et al., 2010). The OBQ Importance/Control subscale assesses the belief that it is possible (and necessary) to control thoughts, and the belief that thoughts are meaningful and threatening.

    • Is it more disgusting if I think about it? Examining the interaction of obsessive beliefs and disgust propensity in clinical obsessive-compulsive disorder

      2016, Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, evidence does suggest that obsessive beliefs – dysfunctional assumptions that may underlie OCD (OCCWG, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005) – also play an important role in contamination fear. Contamination symptoms appear to be particularly associated with greater views of the severity or probability of harm in both non-clinical and clinical samples (Jones & Menzies, 1997, 1998; Myers, Fisher, & Wells, 2008; Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group, 2005; Smith, Wetterneck, Hart, Short, & Björgvinsson, 2012; Tolin, Brady, & Hannan, 2008; cf. Julien, O’Connor, Aardema, & Todorov, 2006). In addition to the perception of the identified contaminant as threatening, individuals with high levels of contamination fear tend to view the source of the contamination as dynamic and capable of spreading quickly (Riskind, Abreu, Strauss, & Holt, 1997; Riskind, Wheeler & Picerno, 1997; Tolin, Worhunsky, & Maltby, 2004).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +1 281 283 3364.

    2

    Tel.: +1 832 264 8152.

    3

    Tel.: +1 281 283 3324.

    4

    Tel.: +1 617 855 4180.

    View full text