Flipbook

3 DISCONFIRMING CONTAMINATION-RELATED THREAT BELIEFS 81 Table 3. Participants’ explanations for the pre- to post-test change in threat belief ratings in the exposure plus response prevention (E+RP), exposure plus safety behavior (E+SB) and control condition. Change Explanation Example E+RP E+SB Control Increase ER “The longer I looked at it, the more disgusted I became.” 2 2 5 No change No disconfirmation “The duration was not long enough to find out if I will get ill or not.” 1 1 3 Decrease Habituation/ER “My feelings of disgust and contamination decreased, I got used to it. The risk seems less severe now.” 11 12 9 Disconfirmation “I have not gotten ill immediately.” 5 3 1 CS reevaluation “I got to take a better look at the object, which made me see that it was not as dangerous as I thought.” 2 2 3 US reevaluation “I associated it with cleaning a toilet: You do not get ill from that either.” 6 2 4 SB availability “Because I know I can clean my hands, the risk felt less severe”. - 5 - Note. Change = the pre- to post-test change threat belief ratings; No. = the number of participants who reported an increase, no change, or a decrease in plausibility of their threat belief; Explanation = the category of the explanation participants reported; ER = emotional reasoning; CS reevaluation = reevaluation of the contaminant; US = reevaluation of the expected catastrophe; Fr. = the frequency with which each category of explanation was given by participants. Note that some participants reported more than one explanation.