Deontological guilt and obsessive compulsive disorder

Mancini, Francesco; Gangemi, Amelia

doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.05.003

Cited by 51 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If one wished to do so, a two-factor higher order hierarchical factor analysis could combine Disloyalty, Survivor, and Omnipotence Guilt into one factor (Cronbach's alpha = .85) and Self-hate into its own factor (Cronbach's alpha = .85). These two factors would be similar to the empirical factors of the IGQ-67 and to the differentiation between altruistic and ontological guilt proposed by Mancini and Gangemi (2015).…”

Section: Factor Analysessupporting

confidence: 59%

Reliability and Validity of the Interpersonal Guilt Rating Scale-15: A New Clinician-Reporting Tool for Assessing Interpersonal Guilt According to Control-Mastery Theory

Gazzillo

Gorman

Bush

et al. 2017

Psychodynamic Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces the Interpersonal Guilt Rating Scale-15 (IGRS-15), a brief clinician-rated tool for the clinical assessment of interpersonal guilt as conceived in Control-Mastery Theory (CMT; Silberschatz, 2015; Weiss, 1993), and its psychometric proprieties. The items of the IGRS-15 were derived from the CMT clinical and empirical literature about guilt, and from the authors' clinical experiences. Twenty-eight clinicians assessed 154 patients with the IGRS-15, the patient self-reported Interpersonal Guilt Questionnaire-67 (IGQ-67; O'Connor, Berry, Weiss, Bush, & Sampson, 1997), and the Clinical Data Form (CDF; Westen & Shedler, 1999). A semi-exploratory factor analysis pointed to a four-factor solution in line with the kinds of guilt described in CMT: Survivor guilt, Separation/disloyalty guilt, Omnipotent responsibility guilt, and Self-hate. The test-retest reliability of the IGRS-15 was good. Moreover, the IGRS-15 showed good concurrent and discriminant validity with the IGQ-67. IGRS-15 represents a first step in the direction of supporting the clinical judgment about interpersonal guilt with an empirically sound and easy-to-use tool.

show abstract

Section: Factor Analysessupporting

confidence: 59%

Reliability and Validity of the Interpersonal Guilt Rating Scale-15: A New Clinician-Reporting Tool for Assessing Interpersonal Guilt According to Control-Mastery Theory

Gazzillo

Gorman

Bush

et al. 2017

Psychodynamic Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite some claims about the involvement of guilt in anxiety disorders in general (e.g. Fergus, Valentiner, McGrath, & Jencius, ), there is some evidence for its central role in OCD (Mancini & Gangemi, ; Rosen, ; Shapiro & Stewart, ), even from a neurobiological perspective (Hennig‐Fast et al, ). The hypothesis about a different kind of guilt, guilt for not having the thought, was fully supported by the results.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in clinical intrusive thoughts between obsessive–compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypochondria

Romero-Sanchiz

Nogueira-Arjona

Godoy

et al. 2017

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences and similarities between intrusive thoughts typical of obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypochondriasis are relevant for their differential diagnosis, formulation, and psychological treatment. Previous research in non-clinical samples pointed out the relevance of some process variables, such as responsibility, guilt, or neutralization strategies. This research is aimed to investigate the differences and similarities between clinical obsessions, worries, and illness intrusions in some of these process variables. A second aim is to identify models based on these variables that could reliably differentiate between them. Three groups of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 35; 60% women, mean age 38.57), generalized anxiety disorder (n = 36; 61.1% women, mean age 41.50), and hypochondriasis (n = 34; 70.6% women, mean age 31.59) were evaluated using the Cognitive Intrusions Questionnaire-Transdiagnostic Version (Romero-Sanchiz, Nogueira-Arjona, Godoy-Ávila, Gavino-Lázaro, & Freeston, ). The results showed that some appraisals (e.g., responsibility or egodystonicity), emotions (e.g., guilt or insecurity), neutralization strategies, and other variables (e.g., verbal content or trigger from body sensation) are relevant for the discrimination between obsessions, worries, and illness intrusions. The results also showed 3 stable models based on these variables for the discrimination between these thoughts. The implication of these results in the diagnosis, formulation, and psychological treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypochondriasis is discussed.

show abstract

“…Psychological disorders involving both fear and disgust are characterized precisely by contamination fear (Rachman, 2004). This is the case for obsessive-complusive disorders (e.g., Mancini & Gangemi, 2011;Olatunji, 2010) as well as the blood-injection-injury (BII) phobia (Sawchuk, Lohr, Tolin, Lee, & Kleinknecht, 2000).…”

Section: Action Tendenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contempt and disgust: the emotions of disrespect

Miceli

Castelfranchi

2018

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contempt and disgust share a number of features which distinguish them from other hostile emotions: they both present two distinct facets—a nonmoral facet and a moral one; they both imply a negative evaluation of the dispositional kind as well as disrespect towards the target of the feeling; and they trigger avoidance and exclusion action tendencies. However, while sharing a common core, contempt and disgust are in our view distinct emotions, qualified by different cognitive‐motivational features. Contempt is felt exclusively towards human targets, and implies sense of superiority over them, pessimistic feelings about their possibility of betterment, detachment from them, and avoidance driven by detachment; whereas disgust can be directed at a wide range of possible targets, and implies contamination sensitivity, fear of contamination, and fear‐driven avoidance. The differences between contempt and disgust are related to the different kinds of standard against which the target is evaluated, and the different kinds of disrespect engendered by the negative evaluation.

show abstract

Deontological guilt and obsessive compulsive disorder

Cited by 51 publications

References 36 publications

Reliability and Validity of the Interpersonal Guilt Rating Scale-15: A New Clinician-Reporting Tool for Assessing Interpersonal Guilt According to Control-Mastery Theory

Reliability and Validity of the Interpersonal Guilt Rating Scale-15: A New Clinician-Reporting Tool for Assessing Interpersonal Guilt According to Control-Mastery Theory

Differences in clinical intrusive thoughts between obsessive–compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and hypochondria

Contempt and disgust: the emotions of disrespect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About