ISSN 2043-8087
Journal of Experimental Psychopathology
 Volume 8, Issue 3, 214-240, 2017
Abstract  E-mail Abstract   Article Purchase as PDF 
Return to Issue List 
Checking heterogeneity and its relationships with action identification level

Authors
  Sanaâ Belayachi - Department of Psychology: Cognition and Behaviour, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
  Martial Van der Linden - Department of Psychology: Cognition and Behaviour, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

Volume 8, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 214-240
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5127/jep.052715

Abstract
Consistent with the action identification theory proposal that some people identify their actions at a low-level (action processing regarding motor parameters) while others generally identify actions at a high-level (regarding goal features), and that a low-level of action identification leads to behavioral dysregulation (repetition, doubts about completion), checking proneness was found to be related to low-level action identification. Nevertheless, checking can be motivated by several factors (dysfunctional beliefs, incompleteness feelings). In the present research, we re-examine the level at which actions are identified by distinct subtypes of checking-prone participants. In Study 1, cluster analysis leads to the identification of four checking subtypes based on two dysfunctional beliefs domains (responsibility and perfectionism); a low-level of action identification may characterize a checking subtype that is not motivated by dysfunctional beliefs. Study 2 further reveals that anxiety and the co-occurrence of obsessing features characterize the checking subtype related to a low-level action identification.

Table of Contents
Introduction
2. Study 1
 2.1. Method
  2.1.1. Participants
  2.2.2. Materials and procedure
 2.2. Results and discussion
  2.2.1. Preliminary analyses
  2.2.2. Group constitution and cluster analyses
  2.2.3. Cluster characterization
3. Study 2
 3.1. Method
  3.1.1. Participants
  3.1.2. Materials and procedure
 3.2. Results and discussion
  3.2.1. Preliminary analyses
  3.2.2. Group constitution and cluster analyses
  3.2.3. Cluster characterization
  3.2.3.1. Group comparison on clustering measures (action identification and checking)
  3.2.3.2. Group comparison on the other OC dimensions
  3.2.3.3. Group comparison on core motivational dimensions (harm avoidance, incompleteness)
  3.2.3.4. Group comparison on anxiety levels
4. General Discussion
Acknowledgments
References

Correspondence to
Miss Sanaâ Belayachi

Keywords
Obsessive-compulsive disorder; checking; heterogeneity; dysfunctional beliefs; action identification; action regulation; goal processing.

Dates
Received 18 Nov 2015; Revised 9 Feb 2017; Accepted 9 Feb 2017; In Press 19 Mar 2017







Bookmark and Share

Related articles by AUTHORS
None Found

Related articles by KEYWORDS
None Found




© Copyright 2009-2016 Textrum Ltd . All rights reserved. Published in the UK. - Contact Us Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use