Author
Listed:
- Sharon Morein-Zamir
- Sonia Shapher
- Julia Gasull-Camos
- Naomi A Fineberg
- Trevor W Robbins
Abstract
High levels of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) could contribute to abnormal decision making in uncertain situations. Patients with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) often report high IU, indecisiveness and the need to seek greater certainty before making decisions. The Beads task is a commonly used task assessing the degree of information gathering prior to making a decision and so would be predicted to show impairments in OCD patients. Results to date have found mixed support for this, possibility due to methodological issues. Here, a group of OCD patients (n = 50) with no comorbidities was compared with age, gender, and verbal-IQ matched controls (n = 50) on the most commonly used version of the Beads task. An independent sample of healthy volunteers with high versus low OC symptoms, and high versus low IU were also assessed (n = 125). There was no evidence that patients with OCD differed from control volunteers in the degree of information gathering prior to making a decision. Medication status and age did not appear to mediate performance. Similarly, there were no association in healthy volunteers between task performance and OC or IU characteristics. Additional measures examining the degree of certainty initially showed support for greater uncertainty in patients, but this was due to deviations from task instructions in a subset of patients. We conclude that despite the large sample size and good matching between groups, the Beads task in its most widely used form is not a useful measure of IU or of information gathering in OCD. The results argue against a robust behavioural difference in OCD when compared to controls. Recommendations for future studies employing the task are discussed.
Suggested Citation
Sharon Morein-Zamir & Sonia Shapher & Julia Gasull-Camos & Naomi A Fineberg & Trevor W Robbins, 2020.
"Avoid jumping to conclusions under uncertainty in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0225970
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225970
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0225970. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.