No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study makes a case for a biopsychosocial model of OCD that draws together fragmented bodies of evidence and understandings from different academic fields. Evidence for biological and psychological contributions to the aetiology and maintenance of the disorder are reviewed with particular attention to the cognitive appraisal model. The cognitive model does not fully explain the high inter-relationships between OCD-related belief domains or why collectively they have specificity for predicting OCD over and above other disorders, implying that another variable may underlie these domains. The traditional conceptualisation of cognition may benefit from being broadened to encompass biological and social aspects. Ostracism research, neuroscientific evidence, evolutionary theory and psycho-linguistic theory (specifically dialogism theory, which conceptualises thinking as dialogue between internalised "voices") may cast further light on a common domain contributing to different OCD-relevant beliefs. The term "punitive ostracism experiences" (POE) is coined to describe a variable that may form this common domain. POE consists of memories of non-contingent punitive ostracism in childhood; unforgiving self-to-self relating; and social information processing bias reflected in attributions of ostracism intent in ambiguous situations. POE was operationalized using existing and adapted measures and a new intent attributions measure which was constructed for the purposes of this study. The constituent variables of POE were hypothesised to contribute to the variance of obsessive beliefs factors and to explain some of the relationship between obsessive beliefs and obsessive compulsive symptoms in a non-clinical sample. Evidence that is supportive of this hypothesis is presented. Conclusions are drawn and suggestions for future research are made. Implications for clinical practise are also considered.

This study explored the experiences of members of an OCD support group, utilising a qualitative design, social constructionist approach, and a systemic framework. Participants were obtained through purposive sampling; data was collected via faceto- face semi-structured interviews with four participants. It emerged that these participants attended two OCD support groups (initial support group and sub-support group). The participants’ experiences were analysed using thematic analysis. Major findings: the participants’ motivation to attend both support groups was to reduce their OCD symptoms and improve functioning. The initial support group was a professional-led psychoeducational support group while the sub-support group was a self-help psychotherapeutic group. The groups also complemented each other with information from the initial support group being implemented in the sub-support group. The participants reported to have benefitted from participation in both support groups as their OCD symptoms reduced and their daily functioning improved. Recommendations for future research were discussed. / Psychology / M.A. (Clinical Psychology)