OCD Influences Evidence Accumulation During Decision Making in Males but Not Females During Perceptual and Value-Driven Choice

Externally orienting cues improve cognitive control in OCD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An executive overload model of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) posits that broad difficulties with executive functioning in OCD result from an overload on the executive system by obsessive thoughts. It implies that, if individuals with OCD "snap out" of their obsessive thoughts, their performance on neurocognitive tasks will improve.

METHODS

We test this prediction using the revised Attention Network Test, ANT-R, and distinct subsamples of data from unmedicated OCD and healthy controls (HC). ANT-R includes Simon and Flanker tasks; in both, incongruent trials take longer to resolve ('conflict costs'). On some trials, a warning cue helps participants to respond faster ('alerting benefits'). In OCD (N = 34) and HC (N = 46), matched on age, IQ, and sex, we tested (1) the effect of OCD on alerting benefits, and (2) the effect of OCD on warning cue related reductions in conflict costs. In a distinct subsample of OCD (N = 32) and HC (N = 51), we assessed whether alerting benefits and cue-related reductions in conflict costs are associated differently with different OCD symptoms.

RESULTS

A warning cue can help individuals with OCD more than HC to improve performance on Simon and Flanker tasks. This effect is positively associated with severity of contamination symptoms.

LIMITATIONS

This study did not directly assess how distracted participants are by obsessive thoughts. It relied on the ANT-R subtraction measures. Symptom severity was assessed using self-report measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Difficulties in resolving conflict during decision-making in OCD can be modulated by a warning cue presented immediately before an attentional task.

Information processing style and institutional trust as factors of COVID vaccine hesitancy

This study investigates the factors contributing to COVID vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy has commonly been attributed to susceptibility to misinformation and linked to particular socio-demographic factors and personality traits. We present a new perspective, emphasizing the interplay between individual cognitive styles and perceptions of public health institutions. In January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, 318 participants underwent a comprehensive assessment, including self-report measures of personality and clinical characteristics, as well as a behavioral task that assessed information processing styles. During 2021, attitudes towards vaccines, scientists, and the CDC were measured at three time points (February-October). Panel data analysis and structural equation modeling revealed nuanced relationships between these measures and information processing styles over time. Trust in public health institutions, authoritarian submission, and lower information processing capabilities together contribute to vaccine acceptance. Information processing capacities influenced vaccination decisions independently from the trust level, but their impact was partially mediated by authoritarian tendencies. These findings underscore the multifactorial nature of vaccine hesitancy, which emerges as a product of interactions between individual cognitive styles and perceptions of public health institutions. This novel perspective provides valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms that drive this complex phenomenon.