Cited by 39Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Attributions, appraisals and attention for symptoms in depersonalisation disorder

Hunter, Elaine C.M., Salkovskis, Paul M., David, Anthony S.·2014·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

A cognitive-behavioural model of depersonalisation disorder (DPD) suggests that catastrophic attributions and appraisals, and increased attention to symptoms, play important roles in the development and maintenance of the disorder. Empirical testing of this model was investigated in three groups: 25 patients with DPD, 21 patients with anxiety (obsessive-compulsive or panic disorder), and 22 psychiatrically healthy participants. Task 1 examined attributions for ambiguous symptoms. Task 2 used a questionnaire to compare the groups on the content, frequency, and conviction in appraisals when participants worried about their health. Task 3 employed four experimental manipulations designed to either increase, or decrease, attention to catastrophic appraisals and/or symptoms of DPD. Results indicate that the DPD group make less normalising attributions for symptoms (Task 1) and have more catastrophic appraisals (Task 2) than those in the Healthy Control group. The DPD and Anxiety groups were similar in their patterns of appraisals and attributions. In Task 3, the DPD group showed a perceived reduction in DPD severity when their attention was focussed on cognitively demanding tasks, whereas the other two groups showed an increase. The findings are consistent with the hypothesis that these cognitive processes play an important role in the development and maintenance of DPD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2013.11.005

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hunter, E. C. M., Salkovskis, P. M., & David, A. S.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Bath (GB)
Corresponding author
Hunter, Elaine C.M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
53
Pages
20-29
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158925236
Cited by
39
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/J004162/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive-behavioral model, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, health anxiety
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Cognition, Depersonalization, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Perception, Case-Control Studies, Panic Disorder, 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