The relationship between obsessive beliefs and symptom dimensions in obsessive–compulsive disorder
Abstract
Research findings on the specific relationships between beliefs and OCD symptoms have been inconsistent, yet the existing studies vary in their approach to measuring the highly heterogeneous symptoms of this disorder. The Dimensional Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DOCS) is a new measure that allows for the assessment of OCD symptom dimensions, rather than types of obsessions and compulsions per se. The present study examined the relationship between OCD symptom dimensions and dysfunctional (obsessive) beliefs believed to underlie these symptom dimensions using a large clinical sample of treatment-seeking adults with OCD. Results revealed that certain obsessive beliefs predicted certain OCD symptom dimensions in a manner consistent with cognitive-behavioral conceptual models. Specifically, contamination symptoms were predicted by responsibility/threat estimation beliefs, symmetry symptoms were predicted by perfectionism/certainty beliefs, unacceptable thoughts were predicted by importance/control of thoughts beliefs and symptoms related to being responsible for harm were predicted by responsibility/threat estimation beliefs. Implications for cognitive conceptualizations of OCD symptom dimensions are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
It is known that not all instances of the same compulsive behaviour are performed for the same underlying reason; for example, someone may check to ensure something is free of contaminants or to ensure they have not caused harm.
“It is known that this is not the case; for example someone may check to ensure something is free of contaminants or to ensure they have not caused harm”
From Emotion and internal experience in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: Reviewing the role of alexithymia, anxiety sensitivity and distress tolerance (2014) · cites this paper as Wheaton, Abramowitz, Berman, Riemann, & Hale, 2010
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 40 · Cited by 188
- Authors
- Wheaton, M. G., Abramowitz, J. S., Berman, N. C., Riemann, B. C., & Hale, L. R.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Abramowitz, Jonathan S.
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 949-954
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108560006
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 10.16
- 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 › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
- Keywords
- obsessive-compulsive disorder, obsessive beliefs, OCD symptom dimensions, unacceptable thoughts, perfectionism, cognitive-behavioral model, treatment-seeking patients
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Behavioral Symptoms, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Self Concept, Temperament, Young Adult
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
