The Impact of Threat Level and Performance Feedback on Checking Behaviour and Its Concomitants: A Multi-Site Study.

Sruthi Sridhar, Bronwyn Steenekamp, Anthea Manuel, Belkis Sayin, Nicolò Biagi, Shannon Wake, Jayne Morriss

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sruthi SridharSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK.

Bronwyn SteenekampSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.

Anthea ManuelSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.

Belkis SayinSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.

Nicolò BiagiHenley Business School, Business Informatics Systems and Accounting, Informatics Research Centre, University of Reading, UK.

Shannon WakeSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK.

Jayne MorrissSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7928-9673

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Checking behaviours are commonly engaged to prevent adverse outcomes and alleviate uncertainty. Understanding how community populations engage in checking behaviours based on different factors such as threat level and performance feedback may inform us as to how checking behaviours become excessive in clinical obsessive-compulsive disorder populations. To address these questions, this study manipulated threat level (low threat: performance score only; high threat: mild electric shock based on performance score) and performance feedback (no feedback, feedback) during a visual discrimination and checking task. During the task, the participants' goal was to identify whether two shapes presented in succession were identical or different. Throughout the task, we recorded multiple read out measures: checking frequency, ratings of urge to check and distress, task performance, and corrugator supercilii activity. Data were recorded across two sites (

Indexed as

checkingcorrugator superciliiperformance feedbackthreat

Identifiers

PMID42186365

DOI10.1177/17470218261456728

PMCPMC13675593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.