Measuring Beliefs About Distraction: Might the Function of Distraction Matter More than Distraction Itself?

Exploring the Dimensions of Smartphone Distraction: Development, Validation, Measurement Invariance, and Latent Mean Differences of the Smartphone Distraction Scale (SDS)

Background: Distraction is a functional emotion regulation strategy utilized to relieve emotional distress. Within the attention economy perspective, distraction is increasingly associated with digital technology use, performance impairments and interference with higher-order cognitive processes. Research on smartphone distraction and its association with problematic smartphone use is still scarce and there is no available psychometric assessment tool to assess this cognitive and emotive process parsimoniously. Method: The present study reports the development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Smartphone Distraction Scale (SDS) through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, construct validity, gender invariance, and latent mean differences. The study was conducted in a sample of British university students (N = 1,001; M = 21.10 years, SD = 2.77). Results: The 16-item SDS was best conceptualized in a four-factor model solution comprising attention impulsiveness, online vigilance, emotion regulation, and multitasking. Construct validity was established using relevant psychosocial and mental health measures, with SDS scores being moderately associated with deficient self-regulation and problematic social media use. Gender measurement invariance was achieved at the configural, metric, and scalar levels, and latent mean differences indicated that females had significantly higher means than males across all four SDS latent factors. Discussion: The SDS presents with several strengths, including its theoretical grounding, relatively short length, and sound psychometric properties. The SDS enables the assessment of distraction, which appears to be one of the pathways to problematic smartphone use facilitating overuse and overreliance on smartphones for emotion regulation processes. The assessment of distraction in relation to problematic use in vulnerable populations may facilitate interventions that could encourage metacognition and benefit these groups by allowing sustained productivity in an increasingly disrupted work and social environment.

What do you really need? Self- and partner-reported intervention preferences within cognitive behavioural therapy for reassurance seeking behaviour

Background:

Reassurance seeking (RS) in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is commonly addressed in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) using a technique called reducing accommodation. Reducing accommodation is a behaviourally based CBT intervention that may be effective; however, there is a lack of controlled research on its use and acceptability to clients/patients, and case studies suggest that it can be associated with negative emotional/behavioural consequences. Providing support to encourage coping with distress is a cognitively based CBT intervention that may be an effective alternative, but lacks evidence regarding its acceptability.

Aims:

This study aimed to determine whether support provision may be a more acceptable/endorsed CBT intervention for RS than a strict reducing accommodation approach.

Method:

Participants and familiar partners (N = 179) read vignette descriptions of accommodation reduction and support interventions, and responded to measures of perceived intervention acceptability/adhereability and endorsement, before completing a forced-choice preference task.

Results:

Overall, findings suggested that participants and partners gave significantly higher ratings for the support than the accommodation reduction intervention (partial η2 = .049 to .321). Participants and partners also both selected the support intervention more often than the traditional reducing accommodation intervention when given the choice.

Conclusions:

Support provision is perceived as an acceptable CBT intervention for RS by participants and their familiar partners. These results have implications for cognitive behavioural theory and practice related to RS.

Beliefs about safety behaviours in the prediction of safety behaviour use

BACKGROUND

Safety behaviours are ubiquitous across anxiety disorders and are associated with the aetiology, maintenance and exacerbation of anxiety. Cognitive behavioural models posit that beliefs about safety behaviours directly influence their use. Therefore, beliefs about safety behaviours may be an important component in decreasing safety behaviour use. Unfortunately, little empirical research has evaluated this theorized relationship.

AIMS

The present study aimed to examine the predictive relationship between beliefs about safety behaviours and safety behaviour use while controlling for anxiety severity.

METHOD

Adults with clinically elevated levels of social anxiety (n = 145) and anxiety sensitivity (n = 109) completed an online survey that included established measures of safety behaviour use, quality of life, and anxiety severity. Participants also completed the Safety Behaviour Scale (SBS), a measure created for the current study which includes a transdiagnostic checklist of safety behaviours, as well as questions related to safety behaviour use and beliefs about safety behaviours.

RESULTS

Within both the social anxiety and anxiety sensitivity groups, positive beliefs about safety behaviours predicted greater safety behaviour use, even when controlling for anxiety severity. Certain beliefs were particularly relevant in predicting safety behaviour use within each of the clinical analogue groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that efforts to decrease safety behaviour use during anxiety treatment may benefit from identifying and modifying positive beliefs about safety behaviours.

Too little, too much, or just right? Does the amount of distraction make a difference during contamination-related exposure?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The extant literature has shown mixed results regarding the impact of distraction use on exposure outcome; however, a wide variety of distraction tasks have been utilized across studies. In order to better understand these discrepant findings, we aimed to evaluate the impact of differing levels of distraction on exposure outcome. Additionally, treatment acceptability and changes in self-efficacy were assessed to evaluate how these may differ as a function of distraction use.

METHODS

In Experiment 1 (N = 176 participants tested), distraction tasks were experimentally validated through assessing changes in reaction time when completing concurrent tasks. Based on Experiment 1, distraction tasks were selected for use in Experiment 2, in which contamination-fearful participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: no, low, moderate, or high distraction during an exposure session. Participants (N = 124) completed a behavioural approach test and self-efficacy measure pre- and post-exposure and at one-week follow-up. Treatment acceptability was assessed immediately following the exposure session.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between conditions for changes in behavioural approach pre-to post-exposure or at one-week follow-up. However, increases in self-efficacy pre-to post-exposure were greatest for moderate distraction, and treatment acceptability was highest with moderate and high distraction.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were not assessed for clinical severity, were not treatment-seeking, and only one specific type of fear was investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Distraction (at any level) did not appear to negatively impact exposure outcome (all conditions improved pre-to post-exposure and at follow-up), but utilizing moderate to high amounts of distraction increased treatment acceptability.