Cited by 130Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

The effect of attention training on a behavioral test of contamination fears in individuals with subclinical obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

Open access
Najmi, Sadia, Amir, Nader·2010·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

In the current study, we evaluated the effectiveness of attention training in individuals with subclinical obsessive-compulsive symptoms. We hypothesized that after completing attention training, participants would be more likely to complete steps in a hierarchy approaching their feared contaminant compared with participants in the control condition. Participants completed a probe detection task by identifying letters replacing one member of a pair of words (neutral or contamination related). We trained attention by building a contingency between the location of the contamination-related word in the active condition and not in the control condition. Participants in the active group showed a significant reduction in attention bias for threat and completed significantly more steps when approaching their feared objects compared with participants in the control group. Our results suggest that attention disengagement training may facilitate approaching feared objects in individuals with obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

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 · 10.1037/a0017549

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Najmi and Amir found relative to nonactive condition, individuals in active ABM group were less avoidant of contaminated objects during subsequent behavioral approach task.

    “The authors found that relative to those in the nonactive condition, individuals in the active ABM group were less avoidant of contaminated objects during a subsequent behavioral approach task.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Najmi, S., & Amir, N.
Affiliations
San Diego State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2010-02
Volume
119
Issue
1
Pages
136-142
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W1995819204
Cited by
130
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH087623, R34MH073004)
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
attention training, fear of contamination, approach behavior, contingency learning
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Teaching

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