Flipbook

3 DISCONFIRMING CONTAMINATION-RELATED THREAT BELIEFS 79 Perceived control Perceived control did not change from pre- to post-test, F (4,60) = 0.62, p = .65, or differ between conditions, F (8,122) = 0.86, p = .55. There was no Time x Condition interaction, F (8,122) = 1.01, p = .43. Mean perceived control ranged from 52.62 ( SD = 24.42; pre-test disgust) to 71.64 ( SD = 21.87; post-test danger). Threat belief There was a pre- to post-test decrease in threat belief ratings, F (1,63) = 67.98, p < .001, η p 2 = .52, which differed between conditions, F (2,63) = 3.51, p = .04, η p 2 = .10, see Figure 1. There was no main effect of Condition, F (2,63) = 0.87, p = .42. Compared to the control condition, the decrease was larger in the E+RP, t (42) = 2.49, p = .02, d = 0.75, and E+SB condition, t (42) = 2.16, p = .04, d = 0.65. The decrease in the E+RP and E+SB condition did not differ, t (42) = 0.38, p = .70. Paired-tests show that threat beliefs decreased significantly and substantially in each condition: E+RP t (21) = 5.65, p < .001, d = 1.52; E+SB t (21) = 5.46, p < .001, d = 1.36; and control t (21) = 2.94, p = .008, d = 0.66. Reasons for change in belief ratings Participants’ explanations of why the degree to which they believed their threat belief had decreased/increased/stayed the same from the pre-test to the post-test are summarized in Table 3. Participants could provide more than one reason. The reported reasons for decrease could conveniently be divided into five categories. The first was a habituation and emotional reasoning (Arntz, Rauner, & van den Hout, 1995; Engelhard & Arntz, 2005) pattern: participants explained that their feelings of CFDD had decreased due to repeated exposure to the contaminant, and that they therefore considered it less likely that they would get ill after touching the contaminant. The second argument related to disconfirmation: participants noticed that they did not get ill immediately after touching the contaminant, and they therefore considered it less likely that they would get ill on the long-term. The third process entailed stimulus (conditioned stimulus or CS) reevaluation: participants