Cited by 100Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Role of thought-related beliefs and coping strategies in the escalation of intrusive thoughts: An analog to obsessive-compulsive disorder

Marcks, Brook A., Woods, Douglas W.·2007·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Cognitive-behavioral models of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) assume that obsessions have their origin in normal intrusive thoughts. These models propose that certain beliefs, such as thought-action fusion (TAF) beliefs, combined with the use of ineffective coping strategies, such as thought suppression, lead to the development of OCD. The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between these variables in a non-clinical sample in addition to exploring the effects of an alternative, acceptance-based coping strategy. This study explored the relationship between TAF beliefs, thought suppression, and OC-consistent symptoms via mediational analyses. Results showed that thought suppression mediated the relationship between TAF beliefs and OC-consistent symptoms. This study also experimentally examined the effects of various coping strategies (suppression, acceptance, or monitor-only) on the frequency of a distressing intrusion and appraisal ratings (e.g., anxiety, guilt, responsibility) after a TAF induction. Spontaneous suppression in the monitor-only group made comparisons of the experimental data difficult. However, analyses provided preliminary evidence suggesting that thought suppression is related to more intrusions, higher levels of anxiety, and negative appraisals, whereas an acceptance-based approach may be a useful alternative. Additional findings, limitations of the current study, and directions for future research are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2007.06.012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 100

Authors
Marcks, B. A., & Woods, D. W.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Corresponding author
Woods, Douglas W.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
45
Issue
11
Pages
2640-2651
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077233221
Cited by
100
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, intrusive thoughts, thought-action fusion, thought suppression, coping strategies, obsession, anxiety, guilt, responsibility, mediation, non-clinical sample
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Imagination, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychometrics, Repression, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review