The COGNITIVE BIASES, COPING MECHANISMS AND SYMPTOM SEVERITY AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH OCD TENDENCIES

  • Afreen Fatima MS Scholar in Clinical Psychology, Kinnaird College for Women Lahore
  • Afsheen Gul Associate Professor, Department of Psychology,Kinnaird College for Women Lahore
Keywords: OCD, Cognitive Biases, Coping Mechanisms, Symptom Severity, Hierarchical Regression

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores the cognitive biases, coping mechanisms, and symptom severity among individuals with OCD tendencies. A sample of 200 participants, aged 16-45, was recruited using purposive and snowball sampling strategies. A correlational research design was employed. Participants were initially screened using the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI- R). Coping mechanisms included Adaptive Coping and Maladaptive Coping, with Adaptive Coping showing significant skewness. Symptom severity measures, Obsessions, and Compulsions, demonstrated normal distributions. Pearson correlations revealed significant positive relationships between cognitive biases and symptom severity. Multiple Hierarchical regression analysis, explaining 30% of the variance in obsessions, found Importance/Control of Thoughts as a significant predictor (B = .23, p < .01). Adding coping mechanisms in Step 2 increased the explained variance to 36% with Maladaptive Coping emerging as a significant predictor of obsession severity (B = .48, p < .01). For compulsions, the model explained 36.2% of the variance, with Perfectionism/Certainty (B = .28, p < .001) and Maladaptive Coping (B = .63, p < .001) significantly predicting severity. These results highlight the significant role of maladaptive coping strategies and specific cognitive biases, in predicting symptom severity in OCD. Targeted interventions focusing on these factors may be beneficial for managing OCD symptoms.

 

 

Published
2025-06-29
How to Cite
Fatima, A., & Gul, A. (2025). The COGNITIVE BIASES, COPING MECHANISMS AND SYMPTOM SEVERITY AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH OCD TENDENCIES. Journal of Arts & Social Sciences , 12(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.46662/jass.v12i1.528