Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry · 2024
Does responsibility for potential harm attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory and automatization?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wahl Karina, Kollárik Martin, Lieb Roselind
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Repeated checking results in large reductions in metamemory variables (confidence, details, and vividness). It has been suggested that the underlying mechanism is gradual automatization. At the same time, individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are reluctant to automatize routine processes. The aim was to investigate whether high responsibility for potential harm, typical of OCD, would attenuate the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables and automatization.
METHODS: One hundred seventy-five participants were initially provided with a cover story that put the subsequent virtual checking task in a context of potential harm for not checking properly. Participants were randomly allocated to four experimental groups (varying high and low responsibility, relevant and irrelevant checking) and performed a virtual checking task repeatedly, using either identical stimuli (relevant checking) or different stimuli (irrelevant checking) between the first and final checking trial. Metamemory variables were rated on visual analogue scales, and response latencies were assessed to establish automatization.
RESULTS: Larger reductions in metamemory variables following relevant checking compared to irrelevant checking replicated previous findings. High responsibility did not affect these results. Large reductions in response latencies across the checking trials (automatization) were also independent of the perceived responsibility.
LIMITATIONS: We did not include individuals with OCD.
CONCLUSIONS: Since responsibility did not influence the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables, findings are consistent with the idea that automatization remains a plausible explanation of the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables in individuals with OCD.
METHODS: One hundred seventy-five participants were initially provided with a cover story that put the subsequent virtual checking task in a context of potential harm for not checking properly. Participants were randomly allocated to four experimental groups (varying high and low responsibility, relevant and irrelevant checking) and performed a virtual checking task repeatedly, using either identical stimuli (relevant checking) or different stimuli (irrelevant checking) between the first and final checking trial. Metamemory variables were rated on visual analogue scales, and response latencies were assessed to establish automatization.
RESULTS: Larger reductions in metamemory variables following relevant checking compared to irrelevant checking replicated previous findings. High responsibility did not affect these results. Large reductions in response latencies across the checking trials (automatization) were also independent of the perceived responsibility.
LIMITATIONS: We did not include individuals with OCD.
CONCLUSIONS: Since responsibility did not influence the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables, findings are consistent with the idea that automatization remains a plausible explanation of the effects of repeated checking on metamemory variables in individuals with OCD.