Cited by 12Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

An experimental investigation of contamination-related reassurance seeking: Familiar versus unfamiliar others

Neal, Rachael L., Radomsky, Adam S.·2015·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives Repeated reassurance seeking (RS) is a hallmark feature of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Research in related areas of psychopathology suggests that familiarity with a partner can influence symptom expression. We hypothesized that participants in the company of a familiar (vs. unfamiliar) partner would seek more reassurance following an ambiguous task involving contamination-related threat. Methods Participants completed an ambiguous dishwashing task in the company of a familiar or unfamiliar other, and were subsequently given an opportunity to seek reassurance. Participants and their assigned partners completed a measure of RS wherein they reported the number of times the participant sought reassurance; actual reassurance seeking was coded based on a recording of the interaction. Results Results demonstrated that participants sought more reassurance from familiar (vs. unfamiliar) others F(3, 86) = 9.20, p < .001, partial η(2) = .24); this effect was robust when partner-reported (F(1, 88) = 27.04, p < .001, partial η(2) = .24), a trend when participant-reported (F(1, 88) = 2.72, p = .10, partial η(2) = .03), but not significant when using objectively-coded data (F(1, 88) = 0.14, p = .71, partial η(2) = .00). Limitations As this experiment was a preliminary attempt to examine RS in an interpersonal context, the study may not have captured compulsive or excessive RS. Conclusions Overall, results suggest that RS may be perceived as more excessive by familiar (versus unfamiliar) others, which may contribute to the distress experienced by carers of individuals with OCD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.03.014

Cites

41 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Supportive responses are probably more beneficial than outright refusal to give reassurance.

    “more supportive statements are likely to be more helpful than simply refusing to provide it (Neal & Radomsky, 2015).”

    From Fear and Anxiety in COVID-19: Preexisting Anxiety Disorders (2021) · cites this paper as Neal & Radomsky, 2015

    The Discussion (pp. 19, 23) addresses partner familiarity, reassurance seeking, and possible intervention targets, but does not compare supportive responses with refusing reassurance. Searches for supportive statements, refusal, and reassurance responses found no passage making that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Pagdin, R., Kobori, O., Salkovskis, P. M., &amp; Read, J. (2011, September). Cognitive Behavioural Treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: developments and enhancements. Carer's perception of and reaction to reassurance seeking in OCD . Symposium conducted at the meeting of The European Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies, Reykjavík, Iceland.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neal, R. L., & Radomsky, A. S.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Corresponding author
Radomsky, Adam S.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
49
Issue
Pt B
Pages
188-194
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078964328
Cited by
12
References
43
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FRN#MOP102552)
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
reassurance seeking, obsessive-compulsive disorder, contamination, familiarity, interpersonal context, partner perceptions, caregiver distress
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Social Behavior, Recognition, Psychology, 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