This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht] On: 07 July 2014, At: 20:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sbeh20
Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of the Illusory Beliefs Inventory a
a
Sarah Shihata , Sarah J. Egan & Clare S. Rees
a
a
School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Published online: 24 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: Sarah Shihata, Sarah J. Egan & Clare S. Rees (2014) Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of the Illusory Beliefs Inventory, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 43:3, 251-261, DOI: 10.1080/16506073.2014.926391 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2014.926391
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 2014 Vol. 43, No. 3, 251–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2014.926391
Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of the Illusory Beliefs Inventory Sarah Shihata, Sarah J. Egan and Clare S. Rees
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Abstract. Magical thinking has been related to obsessive –compulsive disorder; yet, little research has examined this construct in other anxiety disorders. The Illusory Beliefs Inventory (IBI) is a recently developed measure of magical thinking. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of this new measure and to determine if magical thinking accounts for pathological worry beyond the well-researched constructs of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and perfectionism. A sample of 502 participants completed an online survey. Confirmatory factor analysis identified a three-factor solution for the IBI, and the measure had good internal consistency (a ¼ .92), test–retest reliability (r ¼ .94) and discriminant validity. Magical thinking, IU, and perfectionism all predicted pathological worry; however, magical thinking accounted for less than 1% of unique variance in worry, suggesting that it is not strongly related to worry. Further investigation regarding the validity and clinical utility of the IBI is required. Key words: magical thinking; Illusory Beliefs Inventory; intolerance of uncertainty; perfectionism; pathological worry. Received 20 December 2013; Accepted 16 May 2014 Correspondence address: Sarah J. Egan, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6847, Australia. Tel: þ61 89266 2367. Fax: þ61 89266 3178. Email: [email protected]
The Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG, 2001) identified three key domains that maintain obsessive – compulsive disorder (OCD; Tolin, Woods, & Abramowitz, 2003). The key domains include inflated responsibility and overestimation of threat, perfectionism and intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and importance of thought (Tolin et al., 2003). Magical thinking is suggested to play an aetiological role in OCD and is a salient predictor of OCD symptoms (Einstein & Menzies, 2004b). Further exploration of these variables may help to advance the theory and treatment of OCD and other disorders. The over-importance of thought is a central cognitive distortion in OCD and comprises magical thinking, superstitious thinking and thought–action fusion (TAF). Magical thinking refers to beliefs that are inconsistent with scientific or culturally accepted laws of causality (Einstein & Menzies, 2004a, 2006). Magical thinking includes superstitious thinking, TAF, paranormal phenomena, and q 2014 Swedish Association for Behaviour Therapy
religious beliefs (Kingdon, Egan, & Rees, 2012). The most extensively used measure of magical thinking is Eckblad and Chapman’s (1983) Magical Ideation Scale (MIS). The MIS was not established to assess magical thinking in the general population, but rather to identify individuals at risk for psychosis and so does not represent a “pure” measure of magical thinking (Kingdon et al., 2012). Kingdon et al. (2012) argued that this is problematic, as psychotic symptoms are irrelevant to magical thinking in OCD. To address limitations of measures of magical thinking, Kingdon et al. (2012) developed the Illusory Beliefs Inventory (IBI), a new measure of magical thinking for use in both the general population and clinical OCD population. The IBI was developed through the generation of an initial item pool where items were included following a review of established measures, and new items were developed via consultation with clinicians who were OCD experts (Kingdon et al., 2012). The IBI was developed to not only measure
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
252
Shihata, Egan and Rees
magical thinking but also encompass TAF and superstition. Item content reflected magical thinking, the idea that events are the result of magic, belief in a higher power or guiding force, that thoughts predict events and general magical and religious beliefs (Kingdon et al., 2012). In a nonclinical sample, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to derive the 24-item IBI, which comprised three factors: Magical Beliefs, Spirituality and Internal State – Thought Fusion (Kingdon et al., 2012). A hierarchical three-factor structure of the IBI was most parsimonious relative to a fourfactor model suggesting the factors are driven by a higher-order “magical thinking” (Kingdon et al., 2012). The results also indicated an association between OCD symptomatology and magical thinking in the general population. Further exploration of the psychometric properties of the IBI is required, along with the investigation of whether the IBI relates to other constructs with which it is theoretically associated. Limited research has explored magical thinking in anxiety disorders (West & Willner, 2011). Einstein and Menzies (2006) found that OCD patients had significantly higher MIS scores than control and panic disorder groups and concluded that magical ideation is a distinguishing feature of OCD, but not central to other anxiety disorders. However, the conclusions were beyond the scope of their findings, as the participant sample only comprised panic disorder and OCD. Nonetheless, no relationship between magical thinking and social anxiety is anticipated (Einstein & Menzies, 2006). Conceptualisations of OCD and generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) illustrate an overlap between obsessions and pathological worry (e.g., Barlow, Sauer-Zavala, Carl, Bullis, & Ellard, 2012). Individuals with elevated worry may engage in magical thinking as a strategy against feared outcomes and to attain control in stressful situations (Barlow et al., 2012). Further, TAF is a salient feature in OCD and GAD (Coles, Mennin, & Heimberg, 2001); thus, magical thinking may relate to worry (Einstein & Menzies, 2004a). West and Willner (2011) compared magical thinking in individuals with GAD (n ¼ 15), OCD (n ¼ 40) and controls (n ¼ 19). There were no differences between MIS scores in the
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
OCD and GAD groups, emphasising that magical thinking may also be a feature of GAD. However, the findings may be restricted due to the small sample and group nonequivalence (Fergus & Wu, 2010). Further, diagnostic interviews were not conducted (West & Willner, 2011). A better approach would be to explore the relationship between magical thinking and pathological worry in a more dimensional nature in a nonclinical population (Starcevic & Berle, 2006). Further, given limitations of the MIS, the IBI may represent a more valid measure in assessing magical thinking and worry, in relation to perfectionism and IU which are also central cognitive constructs in OCD. Perfectionism refers to high personal standards associated with critical self-evaluation (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Egan, Wade, and Shafran (2011) demonstrated that perfectionism is “transdiagnostic”, as it occurs across depression, OCD, anxiety disorders and eating disorders diagnoses. Perfectionism is significantly related to worry in nonclinical (Sto¨ber & Joormann, 2001) and clinical GAD samples (Handley, Egan, Kane, & Rees, 2014). IU involves the negative appraisal of ambiguous situations and fear of the unknown (Buhr & Dugas, 2006; Carleton, 2012). IU is a transdiagnostic risk factor as it is heightened in OCD, social anxiety, panic disorder and GAD (Carleton, 2012; Carleton et al., 2012; Khawaja & McMahon, 2011). IU is a prominent predictor of worry in both clinical and nonclinical samples (Buhr & Dugas, 2009, 2012). Buhr and Dugas (2006) found that when compared with perfectionism, IU shared the strongest relationship with worry. In line with the continuum view of OCD and worry, several characteristics of the disorder do not differ qualitatively across the population (Barlow et al., 2012). Thus, it is common to examine psychopathology from a dimensional perspective in nonclinical populations to enable participation of broader groups and to identify relationships between variables which further research can explore in a clinical population (Fergus & Wu, 2010). Addressing this disparity in the literature has significant clinical implications as treatment advancements are dependent on the validity and reliability of measures (Duke, Krishnan, Faith, & Storch, 2006). If magical thinking is
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Magical Thinking
related to an array of psychopathologies, it may suggest a valuable target for intervention (West & Willner, 2011). The focus of the study is, first, to examine the reliability and validity of the IBI for use in the general population. To date, only one study has investigated the psychometric properties of the IBI (Kingdon et al., 2012). Magical thinking must be accurately measured to determine its association with OCD and other psychopathologies. Second, as part of establishing discriminant and convergent validity of the IBI, this study will explore the role of magical thinking in pathological worry, in relation to IU and perfectionism which are central to worry and OCD. The aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the IBI and explore the relationship between magical thinking, IU and perfectionism in pathological worry. It was hypothesised that the hierarchical threefactor structure identified by Kingdon et al. (2012) would be a better fit of the data than a one-factor and a three-factor solution. Further, it was hypothesised that the IBI would demonstrate acceptable internal consistency and test – retest reliability. It was predicted that the IBI would demonstrate convergent validity with the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990) and discriminant validity with the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE-S; Rodebaugh et al., 2004; Weeks et al., 2005). It was hypothesised that magical thinking, IU and perfectionism would each predict a significant and unique proportion of the variance in pathological worry.
Method Research design A cross-sectional correlational design was used with the predictor variables of magical thinking, perfectionism and IU. The criterion variable is pathological worry.
Participants There were 502 participants (65% female, 35% male) recruited through snowball and convenience sampling, aged 18 – 73 years [M ¼ 29.98, standard deviation (SD) ¼ 11.57]. Participants resided predominantly in Australia (n ¼ 336), although other countries
253
included USA (n ¼ 89), Canada (n ¼ 17) and the UK (n ¼ 10). Invitations to participate were distributed through social networking sites such as Facebook pages related to general psychology and research, science and scepticism. Further, invitations to participate were advertised through emails, online psychological research discussion boards and the distribution of flyers over an 8-week period. Eligibility criteria required participants to be over 18 years of age. Following completion of the questionnaire, participants were eligible to enter a prize draw for one of two $100 gift cards. An a priori power analysis for the CFA based on five participants per parameter estimated that 270 participants were required; thus, the sample was sufficient.
Measures Illusory Beliefs Inventory (Kingdon et al., 2012). The IBI is a 24-item measure of magical thinking. The IBI comprises three subscales: Magical Beliefs (general magical and superstitious beliefs; 10 items), Spirituality (religious philosophies and beliefs in a spiritual presence; 9 items) and Internal State – Thought Fusion (related to TAF, including an appraisal of intuitive states and premonition; 5 items). Items are scored on a 5point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher magical thinking. Seven items are reverse-scored. The IBI demonstrates good reliability, convergent, discriminant, concurrent and divergent validity (Kingdon et al., 2012). In the present study, the IBI had good internal consistency for the total scale (a ¼ .92) and the subscales of Magical Beliefs (a ¼ .82), Spirituality (a ¼ .91) and Internal State – Thought Fusion (a ¼ .79). Penn State Worry Questionnaire (Meyer et al., 1990). The PSWQ is a 16-item measure of pathological worry. Responses are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of me). Five items are reversescored. High scores reflect higher levels of worry. The PSWQ had excellent internal consistency in this study (a ¼ .95). Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Short Form (Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007). The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Short Form (IUS-12) is a revised 12-item measure that centres on negative beliefs regarding uncer-
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
254
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
Shihata, Egan and Rees
tainty. Items are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (entirely characteristic of me). Higher scores indicate higher IU. The IUS-12 comprises two factors; Prospective IU and Inhibitory IU. Consistent with prior research (McEvoy & Mahoney, 2013), the total score was used. The IUS-12 has good convergent and discriminant validity (Carleton, 2012; McEvoy & Mahoney, 2013). The IUS-12 had excellent internal consistency in this study (a ¼ .90). Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990): Concern over Mistakes. The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) is a 35-item measure of perfectionism consisting of Personal Standards, Concern over Mistakes (CM), Doubts about Actions, Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism and Organisation. The CM subscale is most correlated with psychological distress (Egan et al., 2011). Responses are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with high scores indicating a higher degree of perfectionism. The FMPS has good validity (Enns & Cox, 2002) and excellent internal consistency (a ¼ .91) in this study. Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, Straightforward Items (Rodebaugh et al., 2004; Weeks et al., 2005). The BFNE-S is an eight-item measure of social anxiety. The BFNE-S is a revised version including the straightforward-worded items from the original BFNE (Leary, 1983; Weeks et al., 2005). Items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me), with higher scores indicating greater fear of negative social evaluation. The BFNE-S has good reliability and validity (Carleton, Collimore, McCabe, & Antony, 2011) and excellent internal consistency in this study (a ¼ .94).
Procedure Ethics approval was obtained from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants were directed to an online questionnaire hosted by Qualtrics after reading a consent form. Participants were then given the option to participate in a followup measure of the IBI 4 weeks after initial completion, and those consenting were contacted via email 4 weeks later. Participants
received a debrief explanation and were given the chance to enter a prize draw.
Analyses Statistical analyses were conducted in two phases. EFA was performed to assess the underlying structure of the IBI. CFA was conducted to evaluate the hypothesised factor structure of the IBI. Following recommendations by Hu and Bentler (1999), a combination of fit indices were used to evaluate model fit. Models were evaluated as a good fit when the root mean square error of approximation and standardised root mean square residual were close to or less than .06 and .08, respectively, and when the comparative fit index, non-normed fit index and normed fit index were approximately .95. The x 2 difference test was used to statistically compare models. Bivariate correlations were used to assess construct validity and test– retest reliability. Research demonstrates gender differences in worry with females reporting higher levels of worry (Meyer et al., 1990). Thus, to identify control variables for inclusion in the regression analyses, potential gender and age based differences in PSWQ scores were assessed via point biserial and correlation coefficients, respectively. Regression analyses were used to assess the predictive value of magical thinking, IU and perfectionism in worry. Variables were entered in the following order; gender and age (Step 1), IU (Step 2), magical thinking and perfectionism (Step 3). The order of entry followed the usual practice of entering demographic control variables initially. IU was entered on Step 2, followed by magical thinking and perfectionism, due to its prominence in predicting worry.
Results Missing values analysis indicated a significant Little’s Missing Completely at Random test, x 2(900) ¼ 9698.54, p , .001, suggesting the data was not missing at random. Only 0.25% of data was identified as missing, with no single variable having missing data exceeding 5% (highest percentage ¼ 0.99%). Thus, missing data was replaced using Expectation Maximisation. Descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 1. An independent samples t-test was used to compare individuals with high and
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Magical Thinking
255
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for measurement variables (N ¼ 502) Scale IBI Total Magical Beliefs Spirituality Internal State – Thought Fusion PSWQa IUS-12 FMPS CM BFNE-S
M (SD) 58.56 20.23 25.96 12.38 48.10 25.86 22.14 20.60
(17.79) (7.16) (9.81) (4.56) (14.81) (8.97) (7.83) (8.13)
Observed range 24– 107 10– 43 9– 45 5– 23 17– 80 12– 57 8– 45 8– 40
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
Note. M, mean; SD, standard deviation. a Based on the clinical cut-off, the sample’s mean PSWQ score was indicative of clinically significant worry symptoms.
low PSWQ scores in relation to total IBI scores. Individuals who reported high levels of worry had significantly higher IBI scores than those who reported low levels of worry, t (248) ¼ 2 2.96, p ¼ .003, d ¼ 0.37.
Exploratory factor analysis An EFA was conducted to assess the underlying factor structure of the IBI. Following Costello and Osborne’s (2005) guidelines, data was subject to maximum likelihood with Promax rotation. The Kaiser rule and inspection of the scree test suggested the presence of two factors. Thus, data was generated to fit a one-, two-, three- and fourfactor model. Examination of the pattern matrix revealed the best defined factor structure comprised three factors accounting for 47.75% of the total variance. Factor 1 (Spirituality) accounted for 32.56% of variance, Factor 2 (Internal State – Thought Fusion), 11.24% and Factor 3 (Magical Beliefs), 3.95% as seen in Table 2. Moderate to strong correlations were observed between Spirituality and Internal State – Thought Fusion (r ¼ .46), Spirituality and Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .36) and Internal State –Thought Fusion and Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .61).
Confirmatory factor analysis A CFA was conducted using LISREL (version 8.80) to confirm and assess the relative fit of the hierarchical three-factor structure of the IBI examined in Kingdon et al. (2012). Results indicated that the hierarchical model provided a poor fit, meeting none of the criterion values
specified by Hu and Bentler (1999). To examine potential alternative factor solutions, the data was then fit to a unifactorial and three-factor correlated model. The unidimensional model also failed to reach any of the recommended fit indices. However, the hierarchical and three-factor models provided an improved overall fit. Both the hierarchical and correlated three-factor models reported identical fit to the data as seen in Table 3. A nonsignificant x 2 difference test between the hierarchical and three-factor model suggested that the three-factor model was the most parsimonious model. While the preferred model, it should be noted that this threefactor model did not provide an excellent fit. There was no theoretical rationale based on existing data on the IBI to evaluate a model with an alternative factor structure. The comparative fit indices between three possible factor solutions are illustrated in Table 3.
Test –retest reliability A subset of 164 of the 502 participants completed the measure a second time after a 4 –6-week interval (mean interval of 29 days). Significant, strong, positive correlations were examined between initial and retest periods for the IBI total (r ¼ .94, p , .001), Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .87, p , .001), Spirituality (r ¼ .95, p , .001) and Internal State – Thought Fusion (r ¼ .85, p , .001). All effect sizes were large ranging from .72 to .91. Strong, positive correlations support the temporal stability of the IBI.
256
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
Shihata, Egan and Rees
Table 2. Promax rotated factor structure of the IBI (N ¼ 502) Internal State – Magical Spirituality Thought Fusion Beliefs
No. Item
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
24. 18. 1. 3. 23. 19. 8. 21. 13. 22. 15. 6. 10. 9. 20. 2. 16. 17. 12. 4. 7. 11. 14. 5.
I believe in a higher power or God I believe guardian angels or other spiritual forces protect me I use prayer to ward off misfortune The soul does not continue to exist after death (R) I do not believe in a spiritual presence (R) Science is the key to understanding how things happen (R) It is just a matter of time until science can explain everything (R) There is an invisible force guiding us all Life is nothing more than a series of random events (R) You should never tempt fate If I think too much about something, it will happen If I think too much about something bad, it will happen Sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen, before it happens I do something special to prevent bad luck My thoughts alone can alter reality I have sometimes changed my plans because I had a bad feeling I avoid unlucky numbers Most things that happen to us are the result of fate Magic causes miracles to happen I believe in magic Magical forces have impacted on my life It is not possible to cast a magical spell (R) Good luck charms do not work (R) I sometimes perform special rituals for protection Eigenvalues following rotation
.84 .80 .79 .74 .73 .72 .71 .63 .62 .39
.37 .97 .86 .59 .47 .46 .42
.31
.38 .34
.30 7.82
2.70
.77 .76 .72 .43 .41 .27 .95
Note. .37, .31, .30, suppressed; R, reverse scored.
Convergent and discriminant validity Bivariate correlations between the IBI, PSWQ and BFNE-S were conducted to evaluate the construct validity of the IBI. Significant, small to moderate correlations were found between the IBI total (r ¼ .22, p , .001), Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .20, p , .001), Spirituality (r ¼ .11, p ¼ .018) and Internal State –
Thought Fusion (r ¼ .33, p , .001) and the PSWQ. Small, significant and positive correlations between the IBI total (r ¼ .10, p ¼ .020), Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .15, p ¼ .001) and Internal State –Thought Fusion (r ¼ .19, p , .001), and the BFNE-S and non-significant correlations between Spirituality (r ¼ 2 .01, p ¼ .831) and the BFNE-S indicated discriminant validity.
Table 3. Comparative model fit indices of IBI data (N ¼ 502) Fit index CFI SRMR RMSEA [90% CI] NNFI NFI
1 factor model
3 factor model
Hierarchical model
.83 .15 .24 [.24, .25] .81 .82
.92 .10 .13 [.13, .14] .91 .91
.92 .10 .13 [.13, .14] .91 .91
Note. CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; NNFI, non-normed fit index; NFI, normed fit index; CI, confidence interval.
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Magical Thinking
257
Table 4. Bivariate correlation matrix for measurement and control variables (N ¼ 502) 1 1. IBI Magical Beliefs 2. IBI Spirituality 3. IBI Internal State – Thought Fusion 4. PSWQ 5. IUS-12 6. FMPS CM 7. Gendera 8. Age
2
– .52** .63**
– .37**
.20** .12** .07 .21** 2 .12*
.11* .08 2.07 .19** .01
3
4
5
6
7
8
– .63** .53** .27** 2.22**
– .57** .06 2 .18**
– .03 2.17**
– 2 .11**
–
– .33** .23** .22** .18** 2 .16**
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
*p , .05; **p , .001. a Gender coding: 0 ¼ Male; 1 ¼ Female.
Predictors of pathological worry A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether magical thinking, IU and perfectionism can predict worry. As gender and age were correlated with worry, they were controlled in the regression (see Table 4). At Step 1, gender and age accounted for a significant 11.30% of the variance in worry, R 2 ¼ .113, F(2, 499) ¼ 31.83, p , .001, representing a medium effect size ( f 2 ¼ .13; Cohen, 1992). In combination, both control variables accounted for a significant portion of unique variance in worry, with gender accounting for 4.70% and age 0.80%. At Step 2, the predictor variable, IU, was
added to the regression model. IU accounted for an additional 36.20% of variance, DR ¼ .362, F(4, 498) ¼ 342.89, p , .001. At Step 3, Magical Beliefs, Spirituality, Internal State – Thought Fusion and perfectionism (CM) were added to the regression model. The IBI subscales and perfectionism (CM) accounted for an additional 4.90% of variance, DR ¼ .049, F(4, 494) ¼ 12.58, p , .001. In combination, the predictor variables explained a significant 52.30% of the variance in worry, R 2 ¼ .523, adjusted R 2 ¼ .517, F(7, 494) ¼ 77.48, p , .001, representing a large effect ( f 2 ¼ 1.10; Cohen, 1992).
Table 5. Unstandardised (B) and standardised (b) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial correlations (sr2) for each predictor at each step of the hierarchical multiple regression predicting
pathological worry (N ¼ 502)
Step 1 Gender Age Step 2 Gender Age IUS-12 Step 3 Gender Age IUS-12 IBI Magical Beliefs IBI Spirituality IBI Internal State– Thought Fusion FMPS CM Note. CI, confidence interval. *p , .05; **p , .001.
B [95% CI]
b
sr2
7.82 [5.24, 10.41]** 2 .25 [2 .36, 2.15]**
.25 2 .20
.062 .038
7.59 [5.60, 9.59]** 2 .17 [2 .25, 2.09]** 1.00 [.89, 1.11]**
.25 2 .13 .61
.059 .017 .361
6.96 [5.01, 8.92]** 2.12 [2 .20, 2 .04]* .75 [.63, .88]** 2.00 [2.18, .18] 2.00 [2.12, .11] .39 [.122, .655]* .42 [.27, .56]**
.22 2 .09 .46 2 .00 2 .00 .12 .22
.047 .008 .137 .000 .000 .008 .031
258
Shihata, Egan and Rees
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
The subscales of Magical Beliefs, t (494) ¼ 2 .01, p ¼ .996 and Spirituality, t (494) ¼ 2 .08, p ¼ .941, of the IBI did not account for a significant proportion of unique variance in worry. Internal State – Thought Fusion was the only subscale of the IBI that accounted for a significant 0.80% unique variance in worry, t(494) ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .004. Perfectionism (CM) uniquely accounted for 3.10% of the variance in worry, t(494) ¼ 5.66, p , .001. IU was the largest predictor of worry, t(494) ¼ 11.92, p , .001, accounting for 13.70% of unique variance as illustrated in Table 5.
Discussion This study demonstrated that the IBI has good reliability, discriminant validity and some support for construct validity. The role of magical thinking in predicting worry, in relation to IU and perfectionism, found only one subscale of the IBI accounted for unique variance in worry and was the weakest significant predictor. The EFA indicated a three-factor solution was preferred given its simplified interpretation and theoretical support. The factor labels proposed by Kingdon et al. (2012) were deemed appropriate for the extracted factors and thereby retained. Factor 1-Spirituality (10 items) denoted a central theme of religious philosophy, beliefs in a spiritual presence and defiance of scientific explanations. Factor 2Internal State – Thought Fusion (8 items), relates to reflected thoughts predicting events, a cognitive appraisal to intuitive states, superstitious beliefs and fate. Factor 3Magical Beliefs (6 items) reflected general beliefs in magic. Factor loadings in the present study appeared similar (modest to strong overlap) to item and factor loadings reported by Kingdon et al. (2012). The exact hierarchical three-factor structure of the IBI identified by Kingdon et al. (2012) was not confirmed. This hierarchical model provided an equal fit as a more parsimonious three-factor model. Neither model provided an adequate fit, challenging the conceptualisation of the relationship between the IBI constructs, providing evidence that they may be correlated factors related to magical thinking, rather than components driven by a higher-order “magical thinking”. The incon-
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
sistency in findings suggests that further research is required regarding the IBI. Consistent with Kingdon et al. (2012), good reliability of the IBI was also found. This study was the first to examine test – retest reliability and found the IBI had good temporal stability. The present findings did not provide sufficient evidence of the convergent validity of the IBI on the basis of small correlations between two of the three IBI subscales and the PSWQ. A moderate correlation was found between Internal State –Thought Fusion and the PSWQ. This finding is consistent with Coles et al. (2001) who found a significant relationship between TAF and worry. The convergent validity identified in Kingdon et al. (2012) was anticipated, given the IBI and MIS are measures of magical thinking. However, this study was the first to examine the convergent validity of the IBI with a theoretically related construct (worry). Magical thinking is more closely aligned with OCD than worry. Thus, to assess convergent validity, future research should investigate whether the IBI relates to measures of OCD, such as the Obsessive-Beliefs Questionnaire (OCCWG, 2001). This study did support the discriminant validity of the IBI with the subscales being either not related or weakly related to the BFNE-S, supporting previous evidence of discriminant validity (Kingdon et al., 2012). Not surprisingly, IU was the strongest predictor of worry (13.70% of variance), while perfectionism accounted for a significant but small amount (3.10%). Findings are consistent with Buhr and Dugas (2006) who also observed IU to be a larger predictor of worry than perfectionism. Internal State – Thought Fusion was the only subscale that could account for unique variance in worry, though it was less than 1% of the variance. A tenable explanation for the predictive ability of this subscale is afforded by the conceptually similar construct of TAF being significantly related to worry (Coles et al., 2001). Future research should contrast measures of TAF and magical thinking to further determine the relevant role of each construct in psychopathology. Findings suggest that magical thinking does not account for a large degree of worry while IU was a strong predictor. The results are
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
inconsistent with West and Willner (2011) who found magical thinking to be a prominent feature of both GAD and OCD. However, given their sample was clinical it is difficult to make direct comparisons, although our findings are consistent with Einstein and Menzies (2006) who argued that magical thinking is a primary feature of OCD but not of other anxiety disorders. A limitation was that causation could not be determined. Also, despite the large sample size, participants were obtained using convenience sampling and therefore recruitment may be biased. Moreover, although the present sample included participants from different countries, the majority were from Australia. Thus, sample size restrictions precluded examination of whether the IBI functions similarly across different groups and thereby remains an avenue for further investigation. Further, participants were not screened to ensure they represented a “pure” nonclinical sample, and given the relatively high scores on the PSWQ, the sample could not be considered a true representative nonclinical sample. Despite this, it may also be considered a strength that the sample was clinically relevant in terms of having a higher level of worry. Another limitation was that the measures were developed as traditional offline paper methods. Differences in offline and online administration of a measure may result in non-equivalence with regard to the psychometric properties of a measure and score distributions (Buchanan et al., 2005). Despite this, research demonstrates that often online and offline methods are equivalent (Buchanan et al., 2005). Moreover, another limitation is that measures of OCD domains (e.g., over importance or need to control thoughts) and TAF (e.g., TAF-scale; Shafran, Thordarson, & Rachman, 1996) were not included. Failure to include such measures restricts our understanding of the relationship between worry and magical thinking and the utility of the IBI as a new measure. Thus, future research should include such measures to further assess the construct validity of the IBI. Further, this study utilised one subscale of perfectionism (CM) to predict worry; thus, future research may examine the relevance of other components of perfectionism in predicting worry. Furthermore, given differences of the IUS-12
Magical Thinking
259
subscales (Prospective IU and Inhibitory IU) in predicting worry (Carleton, 2012), future research may further evaluate the relative relationships and predictive utility of these dimensions. Future research should examine the IBI in a clinical OCD sample. This will enable examination of the clinical utility of the IBI and a refined understanding of the role of magical thinking. The IBI has promising results regarding its psychometric properties. Potential clinical implications include the use of the IBI as a screening measure to guide treatment and identify whether magical thinking may represent a valuable target for intervention. OCD can be improved by directly focusing on magical thinking in cognitive therapy (Einstein, Menzies, St Clare, Drobny, & Helgadottir, 2011), and it would be useful to determine the comparative efficacy of treatments for magical thinking compared to other cognitive treatments using the IBI as an outcome measure.
References Barlow, D.H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J.R., Bullis, J.R., & Ellard, K.K. (2012). The nature, diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Back to the future. Clinical Psychological Science, 1 – 22. doi:10.1177/2167702613505532 Buchanan, T., Ali, T., Heffernan, T.M., Ling, J., Parrott, A.C., Rodgers, J., & Scholey, A.B. (2005). Nonequivalence of on-line and paperand-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 148– 154. doi:0.3758/ BF03206409 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222– 236. doi:10.1016/ j.janxdis.2004.12.004 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2009). The role of fear of anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty in worry: An experimental manipulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 215– 223. doi:10. 1016/j.brat.2008.12.004 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2012). Fear of emotions, experiential avoidance, and intolerance of uncertainty in worry and generalized anxiety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 5(1), 1 – 17. doi:10.1521/ijct.2012.5.1.1 Carleton, R.N. (2012). The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 12, 937– 947. doi:10.1586/ern.12.82 Carleton, R.N., Collimore, K.C., McCabe, R.E., & Antony, M.M. (2011). Addressing revisions to
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
260
Shihata, Egan and Rees
the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale: Measuring fear of negative evaluation across anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 822– 828. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis. 2011.04.002 Carleton, R.N., Mulvogue, M.K., Thibodeau, M. A., McCabe, R.E., Antony, M.M., & Asmundson, G.J.G. (2012). Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26, 468– 479. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis. 2012.01.011 Carleton, R.N., Norton, P.J., & Asmundson, G.J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 105–117. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155– 159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909. 112.1.155 Coles, M.E., Mennin, D.S., & Heimberg, R.G. (2001). Distinguishing obsessive features and worries: The role of thought – action fusion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 947– 959. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00072-3 Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1– 9. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/ pdf/v10n7.pdf Duke, D., Krishnan, M., Faith, M., & Storch, E.A. (2006). The psychometric properties of the brief fear of negative evaluation scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 807– 817. doi:10.1016/j. janxdis.2005.11.002 Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L.J. (1983). Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 215–225. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.51.2.215 Egan, S.J., Wade, T.D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009 Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004a). Role of magical thinking in obsessive – compulsive symptoms in an undergraduate sample. Depression and Anxiety, 19, 174– 179. doi:10. 1002/da.20005 Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004b). The presence of magical thinking in obsessive compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 539– 549. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967 (03)00160-8 Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2006). Magical thinking in obsessive – compulsive disorder, panic disorder and the general community. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 34, 351–357. doi:10.1017/s1352465806002864 Einstein, D.A., Menzies, R.G., St Clare, T., Drobny, J., & Helgadottir, F.D. (2011). The treatment of magical ideation in obsessive – compulsive disorder. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 4, 16 –29. Retrieved from http:// www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
Enns, M.W., & Cox, B.J. (2002). Nature and assessment of perfectionism. In G.L. Flett & P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 33 – 62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fergus, T.A., & Wu, K.D. (2010). Do symptoms of generalized anxiety and obsessive– compulsive disorder share cognitive processes? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 168– 176. doi:10. 1007/s10608-009-9239-9 Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449– 468. doi:10.1007/bf01172967 Handley, A.K., Egan, S.J., Kane, R.T., & Rees, C. S. (2014). The relationships between perfectionism, pathological worry and generalised anxiety disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 1 – 8. doi:10. 1186/1471-244X-14-98 Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1 – 55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Khawaja, N.G., & McMahon, J. (2011). The relationship of meta-worry and intolerance of uncertainty with pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Behaviour Change, 28, 165– 180. doi:10.1375/bech.28.4.165 Kingdon, B.L., Egan, S.J., & Rees, C.S. (2012). The Illusory Beliefs Inventory: A new measure of magical thinking and its relationship with obsessive compulsive disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 40, 39 – 53. doi:10. 1017/S1352465811000245 Leary, M.R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371– 375. doi:10.1177/ 0146167283093007 McEvoy, P.M., & Mahoney, A.E.J. (2013). Intolerance of uncertainty and negative metacognitive beliefs as transdiagnostic mediators of repetitive negative thinking in a clinical sample with anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27, 216– 224. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis. 2013.01.006 Meyer, T.J., Miller, M.L., Metzger, R.L., & Borkovec, T.D. (1990). Development and validation of the penn state worry questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487– 495. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6 Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG) (2001). Development and initial validation of the obsessive beliefs questionnaire and the interpretation of intrusions inventory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 987– 1006. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00085-1 Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., Thissen, D.M., Heimberg, R.G., Chambless, D.L., & Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: The factor structure and item properties of the original and brief fear of negative evaluation scale. Psychological Assessment, 16, 169– 181. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.2. 169
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
Shafran, R., Thordarson, D.S., & Rachman, S. (1996). Thought – action fusion in obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 10, 379– 391. doi:10.1016/0887-6185(96) 00018-7 Starcevic, V., & Berle, D. (2006). Cognitive specificity of anxiety disorders: A review of selected key constructs. Depression and Anxiety, 23, 51 – 61. doi:10.1002/da.20145 Sto¨ ber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism: Differentiating amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 49 – 60. doi: 10.1023/ a:1026474715384 Tolin, D.F., Woods, C.M., & Abramowitz, J.S. (2003). Relationship between obsessive beliefs
Magical Thinking
261
and obsessive– compulsive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 657– 669. doi:10. 1023/a:1026351711837 Weeks, J.W., Heimberg, R.G., Fresco, D.M., Hart, T.A., Turk, C.L., Schneier, F.R., & Liebowitz, M.R. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the brief fear ofnegative evaluation scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment, 17, 179– 190. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.179 West, B., & Willner, P. (2011). Magical thinking in obsessive – compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviouraland Cognitive Psychotherapy, 39, 399 – 411. doi:10.1017/ S1352465810000883
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sbeh20
Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of the Illusory Beliefs Inventory a
a
Sarah Shihata , Sarah J. Egan & Clare S. Rees
a
a
School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Published online: 24 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: Sarah Shihata, Sarah J. Egan & Clare S. Rees (2014) Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of the Illusory Beliefs Inventory, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 43:3, 251-261, DOI: 10.1080/16506073.2014.926391 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2014.926391
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 2014 Vol. 43, No. 3, 251–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2014.926391
Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of the Illusory Beliefs Inventory Sarah Shihata, Sarah J. Egan and Clare S. Rees
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Abstract. Magical thinking has been related to obsessive –compulsive disorder; yet, little research has examined this construct in other anxiety disorders. The Illusory Beliefs Inventory (IBI) is a recently developed measure of magical thinking. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of this new measure and to determine if magical thinking accounts for pathological worry beyond the well-researched constructs of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and perfectionism. A sample of 502 participants completed an online survey. Confirmatory factor analysis identified a three-factor solution for the IBI, and the measure had good internal consistency (a ¼ .92), test–retest reliability (r ¼ .94) and discriminant validity. Magical thinking, IU, and perfectionism all predicted pathological worry; however, magical thinking accounted for less than 1% of unique variance in worry, suggesting that it is not strongly related to worry. Further investigation regarding the validity and clinical utility of the IBI is required. Key words: magical thinking; Illusory Beliefs Inventory; intolerance of uncertainty; perfectionism; pathological worry. Received 20 December 2013; Accepted 16 May 2014 Correspondence address: Sarah J. Egan, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6847, Australia. Tel: þ61 89266 2367. Fax: þ61 89266 3178. Email: [email protected]
The Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG, 2001) identified three key domains that maintain obsessive – compulsive disorder (OCD; Tolin, Woods, & Abramowitz, 2003). The key domains include inflated responsibility and overestimation of threat, perfectionism and intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and importance of thought (Tolin et al., 2003). Magical thinking is suggested to play an aetiological role in OCD and is a salient predictor of OCD symptoms (Einstein & Menzies, 2004b). Further exploration of these variables may help to advance the theory and treatment of OCD and other disorders. The over-importance of thought is a central cognitive distortion in OCD and comprises magical thinking, superstitious thinking and thought–action fusion (TAF). Magical thinking refers to beliefs that are inconsistent with scientific or culturally accepted laws of causality (Einstein & Menzies, 2004a, 2006). Magical thinking includes superstitious thinking, TAF, paranormal phenomena, and q 2014 Swedish Association for Behaviour Therapy
religious beliefs (Kingdon, Egan, & Rees, 2012). The most extensively used measure of magical thinking is Eckblad and Chapman’s (1983) Magical Ideation Scale (MIS). The MIS was not established to assess magical thinking in the general population, but rather to identify individuals at risk for psychosis and so does not represent a “pure” measure of magical thinking (Kingdon et al., 2012). Kingdon et al. (2012) argued that this is problematic, as psychotic symptoms are irrelevant to magical thinking in OCD. To address limitations of measures of magical thinking, Kingdon et al. (2012) developed the Illusory Beliefs Inventory (IBI), a new measure of magical thinking for use in both the general population and clinical OCD population. The IBI was developed through the generation of an initial item pool where items were included following a review of established measures, and new items were developed via consultation with clinicians who were OCD experts (Kingdon et al., 2012). The IBI was developed to not only measure
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
252
Shihata, Egan and Rees
magical thinking but also encompass TAF and superstition. Item content reflected magical thinking, the idea that events are the result of magic, belief in a higher power or guiding force, that thoughts predict events and general magical and religious beliefs (Kingdon et al., 2012). In a nonclinical sample, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to derive the 24-item IBI, which comprised three factors: Magical Beliefs, Spirituality and Internal State – Thought Fusion (Kingdon et al., 2012). A hierarchical three-factor structure of the IBI was most parsimonious relative to a fourfactor model suggesting the factors are driven by a higher-order “magical thinking” (Kingdon et al., 2012). The results also indicated an association between OCD symptomatology and magical thinking in the general population. Further exploration of the psychometric properties of the IBI is required, along with the investigation of whether the IBI relates to other constructs with which it is theoretically associated. Limited research has explored magical thinking in anxiety disorders (West & Willner, 2011). Einstein and Menzies (2006) found that OCD patients had significantly higher MIS scores than control and panic disorder groups and concluded that magical ideation is a distinguishing feature of OCD, but not central to other anxiety disorders. However, the conclusions were beyond the scope of their findings, as the participant sample only comprised panic disorder and OCD. Nonetheless, no relationship between magical thinking and social anxiety is anticipated (Einstein & Menzies, 2006). Conceptualisations of OCD and generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) illustrate an overlap between obsessions and pathological worry (e.g., Barlow, Sauer-Zavala, Carl, Bullis, & Ellard, 2012). Individuals with elevated worry may engage in magical thinking as a strategy against feared outcomes and to attain control in stressful situations (Barlow et al., 2012). Further, TAF is a salient feature in OCD and GAD (Coles, Mennin, & Heimberg, 2001); thus, magical thinking may relate to worry (Einstein & Menzies, 2004a). West and Willner (2011) compared magical thinking in individuals with GAD (n ¼ 15), OCD (n ¼ 40) and controls (n ¼ 19). There were no differences between MIS scores in the
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
OCD and GAD groups, emphasising that magical thinking may also be a feature of GAD. However, the findings may be restricted due to the small sample and group nonequivalence (Fergus & Wu, 2010). Further, diagnostic interviews were not conducted (West & Willner, 2011). A better approach would be to explore the relationship between magical thinking and pathological worry in a more dimensional nature in a nonclinical population (Starcevic & Berle, 2006). Further, given limitations of the MIS, the IBI may represent a more valid measure in assessing magical thinking and worry, in relation to perfectionism and IU which are also central cognitive constructs in OCD. Perfectionism refers to high personal standards associated with critical self-evaluation (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). Egan, Wade, and Shafran (2011) demonstrated that perfectionism is “transdiagnostic”, as it occurs across depression, OCD, anxiety disorders and eating disorders diagnoses. Perfectionism is significantly related to worry in nonclinical (Sto¨ber & Joormann, 2001) and clinical GAD samples (Handley, Egan, Kane, & Rees, 2014). IU involves the negative appraisal of ambiguous situations and fear of the unknown (Buhr & Dugas, 2006; Carleton, 2012). IU is a transdiagnostic risk factor as it is heightened in OCD, social anxiety, panic disorder and GAD (Carleton, 2012; Carleton et al., 2012; Khawaja & McMahon, 2011). IU is a prominent predictor of worry in both clinical and nonclinical samples (Buhr & Dugas, 2009, 2012). Buhr and Dugas (2006) found that when compared with perfectionism, IU shared the strongest relationship with worry. In line with the continuum view of OCD and worry, several characteristics of the disorder do not differ qualitatively across the population (Barlow et al., 2012). Thus, it is common to examine psychopathology from a dimensional perspective in nonclinical populations to enable participation of broader groups and to identify relationships between variables which further research can explore in a clinical population (Fergus & Wu, 2010). Addressing this disparity in the literature has significant clinical implications as treatment advancements are dependent on the validity and reliability of measures (Duke, Krishnan, Faith, & Storch, 2006). If magical thinking is
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Magical Thinking
related to an array of psychopathologies, it may suggest a valuable target for intervention (West & Willner, 2011). The focus of the study is, first, to examine the reliability and validity of the IBI for use in the general population. To date, only one study has investigated the psychometric properties of the IBI (Kingdon et al., 2012). Magical thinking must be accurately measured to determine its association with OCD and other psychopathologies. Second, as part of establishing discriminant and convergent validity of the IBI, this study will explore the role of magical thinking in pathological worry, in relation to IU and perfectionism which are central to worry and OCD. The aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the IBI and explore the relationship between magical thinking, IU and perfectionism in pathological worry. It was hypothesised that the hierarchical threefactor structure identified by Kingdon et al. (2012) would be a better fit of the data than a one-factor and a three-factor solution. Further, it was hypothesised that the IBI would demonstrate acceptable internal consistency and test – retest reliability. It was predicted that the IBI would demonstrate convergent validity with the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990) and discriminant validity with the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE-S; Rodebaugh et al., 2004; Weeks et al., 2005). It was hypothesised that magical thinking, IU and perfectionism would each predict a significant and unique proportion of the variance in pathological worry.
Method Research design A cross-sectional correlational design was used with the predictor variables of magical thinking, perfectionism and IU. The criterion variable is pathological worry.
Participants There were 502 participants (65% female, 35% male) recruited through snowball and convenience sampling, aged 18 – 73 years [M ¼ 29.98, standard deviation (SD) ¼ 11.57]. Participants resided predominantly in Australia (n ¼ 336), although other countries
253
included USA (n ¼ 89), Canada (n ¼ 17) and the UK (n ¼ 10). Invitations to participate were distributed through social networking sites such as Facebook pages related to general psychology and research, science and scepticism. Further, invitations to participate were advertised through emails, online psychological research discussion boards and the distribution of flyers over an 8-week period. Eligibility criteria required participants to be over 18 years of age. Following completion of the questionnaire, participants were eligible to enter a prize draw for one of two $100 gift cards. An a priori power analysis for the CFA based on five participants per parameter estimated that 270 participants were required; thus, the sample was sufficient.
Measures Illusory Beliefs Inventory (Kingdon et al., 2012). The IBI is a 24-item measure of magical thinking. The IBI comprises three subscales: Magical Beliefs (general magical and superstitious beliefs; 10 items), Spirituality (religious philosophies and beliefs in a spiritual presence; 9 items) and Internal State – Thought Fusion (related to TAF, including an appraisal of intuitive states and premonition; 5 items). Items are scored on a 5point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher magical thinking. Seven items are reverse-scored. The IBI demonstrates good reliability, convergent, discriminant, concurrent and divergent validity (Kingdon et al., 2012). In the present study, the IBI had good internal consistency for the total scale (a ¼ .92) and the subscales of Magical Beliefs (a ¼ .82), Spirituality (a ¼ .91) and Internal State – Thought Fusion (a ¼ .79). Penn State Worry Questionnaire (Meyer et al., 1990). The PSWQ is a 16-item measure of pathological worry. Responses are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of me). Five items are reversescored. High scores reflect higher levels of worry. The PSWQ had excellent internal consistency in this study (a ¼ .95). Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Short Form (Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007). The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Short Form (IUS-12) is a revised 12-item measure that centres on negative beliefs regarding uncer-
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
254
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
Shihata, Egan and Rees
tainty. Items are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (entirely characteristic of me). Higher scores indicate higher IU. The IUS-12 comprises two factors; Prospective IU and Inhibitory IU. Consistent with prior research (McEvoy & Mahoney, 2013), the total score was used. The IUS-12 has good convergent and discriminant validity (Carleton, 2012; McEvoy & Mahoney, 2013). The IUS-12 had excellent internal consistency in this study (a ¼ .90). Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990): Concern over Mistakes. The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) is a 35-item measure of perfectionism consisting of Personal Standards, Concern over Mistakes (CM), Doubts about Actions, Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism and Organisation. The CM subscale is most correlated with psychological distress (Egan et al., 2011). Responses are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with high scores indicating a higher degree of perfectionism. The FMPS has good validity (Enns & Cox, 2002) and excellent internal consistency (a ¼ .91) in this study. Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, Straightforward Items (Rodebaugh et al., 2004; Weeks et al., 2005). The BFNE-S is an eight-item measure of social anxiety. The BFNE-S is a revised version including the straightforward-worded items from the original BFNE (Leary, 1983; Weeks et al., 2005). Items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me), with higher scores indicating greater fear of negative social evaluation. The BFNE-S has good reliability and validity (Carleton, Collimore, McCabe, & Antony, 2011) and excellent internal consistency in this study (a ¼ .94).
Procedure Ethics approval was obtained from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants were directed to an online questionnaire hosted by Qualtrics after reading a consent form. Participants were then given the option to participate in a followup measure of the IBI 4 weeks after initial completion, and those consenting were contacted via email 4 weeks later. Participants
received a debrief explanation and were given the chance to enter a prize draw.
Analyses Statistical analyses were conducted in two phases. EFA was performed to assess the underlying structure of the IBI. CFA was conducted to evaluate the hypothesised factor structure of the IBI. Following recommendations by Hu and Bentler (1999), a combination of fit indices were used to evaluate model fit. Models were evaluated as a good fit when the root mean square error of approximation and standardised root mean square residual were close to or less than .06 and .08, respectively, and when the comparative fit index, non-normed fit index and normed fit index were approximately .95. The x 2 difference test was used to statistically compare models. Bivariate correlations were used to assess construct validity and test– retest reliability. Research demonstrates gender differences in worry with females reporting higher levels of worry (Meyer et al., 1990). Thus, to identify control variables for inclusion in the regression analyses, potential gender and age based differences in PSWQ scores were assessed via point biserial and correlation coefficients, respectively. Regression analyses were used to assess the predictive value of magical thinking, IU and perfectionism in worry. Variables were entered in the following order; gender and age (Step 1), IU (Step 2), magical thinking and perfectionism (Step 3). The order of entry followed the usual practice of entering demographic control variables initially. IU was entered on Step 2, followed by magical thinking and perfectionism, due to its prominence in predicting worry.
Results Missing values analysis indicated a significant Little’s Missing Completely at Random test, x 2(900) ¼ 9698.54, p , .001, suggesting the data was not missing at random. Only 0.25% of data was identified as missing, with no single variable having missing data exceeding 5% (highest percentage ¼ 0.99%). Thus, missing data was replaced using Expectation Maximisation. Descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 1. An independent samples t-test was used to compare individuals with high and
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Magical Thinking
255
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for measurement variables (N ¼ 502) Scale IBI Total Magical Beliefs Spirituality Internal State – Thought Fusion PSWQa IUS-12 FMPS CM BFNE-S
M (SD) 58.56 20.23 25.96 12.38 48.10 25.86 22.14 20.60
(17.79) (7.16) (9.81) (4.56) (14.81) (8.97) (7.83) (8.13)
Observed range 24– 107 10– 43 9– 45 5– 23 17– 80 12– 57 8– 45 8– 40
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
Note. M, mean; SD, standard deviation. a Based on the clinical cut-off, the sample’s mean PSWQ score was indicative of clinically significant worry symptoms.
low PSWQ scores in relation to total IBI scores. Individuals who reported high levels of worry had significantly higher IBI scores than those who reported low levels of worry, t (248) ¼ 2 2.96, p ¼ .003, d ¼ 0.37.
Exploratory factor analysis An EFA was conducted to assess the underlying factor structure of the IBI. Following Costello and Osborne’s (2005) guidelines, data was subject to maximum likelihood with Promax rotation. The Kaiser rule and inspection of the scree test suggested the presence of two factors. Thus, data was generated to fit a one-, two-, three- and fourfactor model. Examination of the pattern matrix revealed the best defined factor structure comprised three factors accounting for 47.75% of the total variance. Factor 1 (Spirituality) accounted for 32.56% of variance, Factor 2 (Internal State – Thought Fusion), 11.24% and Factor 3 (Magical Beliefs), 3.95% as seen in Table 2. Moderate to strong correlations were observed between Spirituality and Internal State – Thought Fusion (r ¼ .46), Spirituality and Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .36) and Internal State –Thought Fusion and Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .61).
Confirmatory factor analysis A CFA was conducted using LISREL (version 8.80) to confirm and assess the relative fit of the hierarchical three-factor structure of the IBI examined in Kingdon et al. (2012). Results indicated that the hierarchical model provided a poor fit, meeting none of the criterion values
specified by Hu and Bentler (1999). To examine potential alternative factor solutions, the data was then fit to a unifactorial and three-factor correlated model. The unidimensional model also failed to reach any of the recommended fit indices. However, the hierarchical and three-factor models provided an improved overall fit. Both the hierarchical and correlated three-factor models reported identical fit to the data as seen in Table 3. A nonsignificant x 2 difference test between the hierarchical and three-factor model suggested that the three-factor model was the most parsimonious model. While the preferred model, it should be noted that this threefactor model did not provide an excellent fit. There was no theoretical rationale based on existing data on the IBI to evaluate a model with an alternative factor structure. The comparative fit indices between three possible factor solutions are illustrated in Table 3.
Test –retest reliability A subset of 164 of the 502 participants completed the measure a second time after a 4 –6-week interval (mean interval of 29 days). Significant, strong, positive correlations were examined between initial and retest periods for the IBI total (r ¼ .94, p , .001), Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .87, p , .001), Spirituality (r ¼ .95, p , .001) and Internal State – Thought Fusion (r ¼ .85, p , .001). All effect sizes were large ranging from .72 to .91. Strong, positive correlations support the temporal stability of the IBI.
256
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
Shihata, Egan and Rees
Table 2. Promax rotated factor structure of the IBI (N ¼ 502) Internal State – Magical Spirituality Thought Fusion Beliefs
No. Item
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
24. 18. 1. 3. 23. 19. 8. 21. 13. 22. 15. 6. 10. 9. 20. 2. 16. 17. 12. 4. 7. 11. 14. 5.
I believe in a higher power or God I believe guardian angels or other spiritual forces protect me I use prayer to ward off misfortune The soul does not continue to exist after death (R) I do not believe in a spiritual presence (R) Science is the key to understanding how things happen (R) It is just a matter of time until science can explain everything (R) There is an invisible force guiding us all Life is nothing more than a series of random events (R) You should never tempt fate If I think too much about something, it will happen If I think too much about something bad, it will happen Sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen, before it happens I do something special to prevent bad luck My thoughts alone can alter reality I have sometimes changed my plans because I had a bad feeling I avoid unlucky numbers Most things that happen to us are the result of fate Magic causes miracles to happen I believe in magic Magical forces have impacted on my life It is not possible to cast a magical spell (R) Good luck charms do not work (R) I sometimes perform special rituals for protection Eigenvalues following rotation
.84 .80 .79 .74 .73 .72 .71 .63 .62 .39
.37 .97 .86 .59 .47 .46 .42
.31
.38 .34
.30 7.82
2.70
.77 .76 .72 .43 .41 .27 .95
Note. .37, .31, .30, suppressed; R, reverse scored.
Convergent and discriminant validity Bivariate correlations between the IBI, PSWQ and BFNE-S were conducted to evaluate the construct validity of the IBI. Significant, small to moderate correlations were found between the IBI total (r ¼ .22, p , .001), Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .20, p , .001), Spirituality (r ¼ .11, p ¼ .018) and Internal State –
Thought Fusion (r ¼ .33, p , .001) and the PSWQ. Small, significant and positive correlations between the IBI total (r ¼ .10, p ¼ .020), Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .15, p ¼ .001) and Internal State –Thought Fusion (r ¼ .19, p , .001), and the BFNE-S and non-significant correlations between Spirituality (r ¼ 2 .01, p ¼ .831) and the BFNE-S indicated discriminant validity.
Table 3. Comparative model fit indices of IBI data (N ¼ 502) Fit index CFI SRMR RMSEA [90% CI] NNFI NFI
1 factor model
3 factor model
Hierarchical model
.83 .15 .24 [.24, .25] .81 .82
.92 .10 .13 [.13, .14] .91 .91
.92 .10 .13 [.13, .14] .91 .91
Note. CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; NNFI, non-normed fit index; NFI, normed fit index; CI, confidence interval.
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Magical Thinking
257
Table 4. Bivariate correlation matrix for measurement and control variables (N ¼ 502) 1 1. IBI Magical Beliefs 2. IBI Spirituality 3. IBI Internal State – Thought Fusion 4. PSWQ 5. IUS-12 6. FMPS CM 7. Gendera 8. Age
2
– .52** .63**
– .37**
.20** .12** .07 .21** 2 .12*
.11* .08 2.07 .19** .01
3
4
5
6
7
8
– .63** .53** .27** 2.22**
– .57** .06 2 .18**
– .03 2.17**
– 2 .11**
–
– .33** .23** .22** .18** 2 .16**
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
*p , .05; **p , .001. a Gender coding: 0 ¼ Male; 1 ¼ Female.
Predictors of pathological worry A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether magical thinking, IU and perfectionism can predict worry. As gender and age were correlated with worry, they were controlled in the regression (see Table 4). At Step 1, gender and age accounted for a significant 11.30% of the variance in worry, R 2 ¼ .113, F(2, 499) ¼ 31.83, p , .001, representing a medium effect size ( f 2 ¼ .13; Cohen, 1992). In combination, both control variables accounted for a significant portion of unique variance in worry, with gender accounting for 4.70% and age 0.80%. At Step 2, the predictor variable, IU, was
added to the regression model. IU accounted for an additional 36.20% of variance, DR ¼ .362, F(4, 498) ¼ 342.89, p , .001. At Step 3, Magical Beliefs, Spirituality, Internal State – Thought Fusion and perfectionism (CM) were added to the regression model. The IBI subscales and perfectionism (CM) accounted for an additional 4.90% of variance, DR ¼ .049, F(4, 494) ¼ 12.58, p , .001. In combination, the predictor variables explained a significant 52.30% of the variance in worry, R 2 ¼ .523, adjusted R 2 ¼ .517, F(7, 494) ¼ 77.48, p , .001, representing a large effect ( f 2 ¼ 1.10; Cohen, 1992).
Table 5. Unstandardised (B) and standardised (b) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partial correlations (sr2) for each predictor at each step of the hierarchical multiple regression predicting
pathological worry (N ¼ 502)
Step 1 Gender Age Step 2 Gender Age IUS-12 Step 3 Gender Age IUS-12 IBI Magical Beliefs IBI Spirituality IBI Internal State– Thought Fusion FMPS CM Note. CI, confidence interval. *p , .05; **p , .001.
B [95% CI]
b
sr2
7.82 [5.24, 10.41]** 2 .25 [2 .36, 2.15]**
.25 2 .20
.062 .038
7.59 [5.60, 9.59]** 2 .17 [2 .25, 2.09]** 1.00 [.89, 1.11]**
.25 2 .13 .61
.059 .017 .361
6.96 [5.01, 8.92]** 2.12 [2 .20, 2 .04]* .75 [.63, .88]** 2.00 [2.18, .18] 2.00 [2.12, .11] .39 [.122, .655]* .42 [.27, .56]**
.22 2 .09 .46 2 .00 2 .00 .12 .22
.047 .008 .137 .000 .000 .008 .031
258
Shihata, Egan and Rees
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
The subscales of Magical Beliefs, t (494) ¼ 2 .01, p ¼ .996 and Spirituality, t (494) ¼ 2 .08, p ¼ .941, of the IBI did not account for a significant proportion of unique variance in worry. Internal State – Thought Fusion was the only subscale of the IBI that accounted for a significant 0.80% unique variance in worry, t(494) ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .004. Perfectionism (CM) uniquely accounted for 3.10% of the variance in worry, t(494) ¼ 5.66, p , .001. IU was the largest predictor of worry, t(494) ¼ 11.92, p , .001, accounting for 13.70% of unique variance as illustrated in Table 5.
Discussion This study demonstrated that the IBI has good reliability, discriminant validity and some support for construct validity. The role of magical thinking in predicting worry, in relation to IU and perfectionism, found only one subscale of the IBI accounted for unique variance in worry and was the weakest significant predictor. The EFA indicated a three-factor solution was preferred given its simplified interpretation and theoretical support. The factor labels proposed by Kingdon et al. (2012) were deemed appropriate for the extracted factors and thereby retained. Factor 1-Spirituality (10 items) denoted a central theme of religious philosophy, beliefs in a spiritual presence and defiance of scientific explanations. Factor 2Internal State – Thought Fusion (8 items), relates to reflected thoughts predicting events, a cognitive appraisal to intuitive states, superstitious beliefs and fate. Factor 3Magical Beliefs (6 items) reflected general beliefs in magic. Factor loadings in the present study appeared similar (modest to strong overlap) to item and factor loadings reported by Kingdon et al. (2012). The exact hierarchical three-factor structure of the IBI identified by Kingdon et al. (2012) was not confirmed. This hierarchical model provided an equal fit as a more parsimonious three-factor model. Neither model provided an adequate fit, challenging the conceptualisation of the relationship between the IBI constructs, providing evidence that they may be correlated factors related to magical thinking, rather than components driven by a higher-order “magical thinking”. The incon-
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
sistency in findings suggests that further research is required regarding the IBI. Consistent with Kingdon et al. (2012), good reliability of the IBI was also found. This study was the first to examine test – retest reliability and found the IBI had good temporal stability. The present findings did not provide sufficient evidence of the convergent validity of the IBI on the basis of small correlations between two of the three IBI subscales and the PSWQ. A moderate correlation was found between Internal State –Thought Fusion and the PSWQ. This finding is consistent with Coles et al. (2001) who found a significant relationship between TAF and worry. The convergent validity identified in Kingdon et al. (2012) was anticipated, given the IBI and MIS are measures of magical thinking. However, this study was the first to examine the convergent validity of the IBI with a theoretically related construct (worry). Magical thinking is more closely aligned with OCD than worry. Thus, to assess convergent validity, future research should investigate whether the IBI relates to measures of OCD, such as the Obsessive-Beliefs Questionnaire (OCCWG, 2001). This study did support the discriminant validity of the IBI with the subscales being either not related or weakly related to the BFNE-S, supporting previous evidence of discriminant validity (Kingdon et al., 2012). Not surprisingly, IU was the strongest predictor of worry (13.70% of variance), while perfectionism accounted for a significant but small amount (3.10%). Findings are consistent with Buhr and Dugas (2006) who also observed IU to be a larger predictor of worry than perfectionism. Internal State – Thought Fusion was the only subscale that could account for unique variance in worry, though it was less than 1% of the variance. A tenable explanation for the predictive ability of this subscale is afforded by the conceptually similar construct of TAF being significantly related to worry (Coles et al., 2001). Future research should contrast measures of TAF and magical thinking to further determine the relevant role of each construct in psychopathology. Findings suggest that magical thinking does not account for a large degree of worry while IU was a strong predictor. The results are
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
inconsistent with West and Willner (2011) who found magical thinking to be a prominent feature of both GAD and OCD. However, given their sample was clinical it is difficult to make direct comparisons, although our findings are consistent with Einstein and Menzies (2006) who argued that magical thinking is a primary feature of OCD but not of other anxiety disorders. A limitation was that causation could not be determined. Also, despite the large sample size, participants were obtained using convenience sampling and therefore recruitment may be biased. Moreover, although the present sample included participants from different countries, the majority were from Australia. Thus, sample size restrictions precluded examination of whether the IBI functions similarly across different groups and thereby remains an avenue for further investigation. Further, participants were not screened to ensure they represented a “pure” nonclinical sample, and given the relatively high scores on the PSWQ, the sample could not be considered a true representative nonclinical sample. Despite this, it may also be considered a strength that the sample was clinically relevant in terms of having a higher level of worry. Another limitation was that the measures were developed as traditional offline paper methods. Differences in offline and online administration of a measure may result in non-equivalence with regard to the psychometric properties of a measure and score distributions (Buchanan et al., 2005). Despite this, research demonstrates that often online and offline methods are equivalent (Buchanan et al., 2005). Moreover, another limitation is that measures of OCD domains (e.g., over importance or need to control thoughts) and TAF (e.g., TAF-scale; Shafran, Thordarson, & Rachman, 1996) were not included. Failure to include such measures restricts our understanding of the relationship between worry and magical thinking and the utility of the IBI as a new measure. Thus, future research should include such measures to further assess the construct validity of the IBI. Further, this study utilised one subscale of perfectionism (CM) to predict worry; thus, future research may examine the relevance of other components of perfectionism in predicting worry. Furthermore, given differences of the IUS-12
Magical Thinking
259
subscales (Prospective IU and Inhibitory IU) in predicting worry (Carleton, 2012), future research may further evaluate the relative relationships and predictive utility of these dimensions. Future research should examine the IBI in a clinical OCD sample. This will enable examination of the clinical utility of the IBI and a refined understanding of the role of magical thinking. The IBI has promising results regarding its psychometric properties. Potential clinical implications include the use of the IBI as a screening measure to guide treatment and identify whether magical thinking may represent a valuable target for intervention. OCD can be improved by directly focusing on magical thinking in cognitive therapy (Einstein, Menzies, St Clare, Drobny, & Helgadottir, 2011), and it would be useful to determine the comparative efficacy of treatments for magical thinking compared to other cognitive treatments using the IBI as an outcome measure.
References Barlow, D.H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J.R., Bullis, J.R., & Ellard, K.K. (2012). The nature, diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Back to the future. Clinical Psychological Science, 1 – 22. doi:10.1177/2167702613505532 Buchanan, T., Ali, T., Heffernan, T.M., Ling, J., Parrott, A.C., Rodgers, J., & Scholey, A.B. (2005). Nonequivalence of on-line and paperand-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 148– 154. doi:0.3758/ BF03206409 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222– 236. doi:10.1016/ j.janxdis.2004.12.004 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2009). The role of fear of anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty in worry: An experimental manipulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 215– 223. doi:10. 1016/j.brat.2008.12.004 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2012). Fear of emotions, experiential avoidance, and intolerance of uncertainty in worry and generalized anxiety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 5(1), 1 – 17. doi:10.1521/ijct.2012.5.1.1 Carleton, R.N. (2012). The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 12, 937– 947. doi:10.1586/ern.12.82 Carleton, R.N., Collimore, K.C., McCabe, R.E., & Antony, M.M. (2011). Addressing revisions to
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
260
Shihata, Egan and Rees
the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale: Measuring fear of negative evaluation across anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 822– 828. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis. 2011.04.002 Carleton, R.N., Mulvogue, M.K., Thibodeau, M. A., McCabe, R.E., Antony, M.M., & Asmundson, G.J.G. (2012). Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26, 468– 479. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis. 2012.01.011 Carleton, R.N., Norton, P.J., & Asmundson, G.J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 105–117. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155– 159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909. 112.1.155 Coles, M.E., Mennin, D.S., & Heimberg, R.G. (2001). Distinguishing obsessive features and worries: The role of thought – action fusion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 947– 959. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00072-3 Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1– 9. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/ pdf/v10n7.pdf Duke, D., Krishnan, M., Faith, M., & Storch, E.A. (2006). The psychometric properties of the brief fear of negative evaluation scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 807– 817. doi:10.1016/j. janxdis.2005.11.002 Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L.J. (1983). Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 215–225. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.51.2.215 Egan, S.J., Wade, T.D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a transdiagnostic process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009 Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004a). Role of magical thinking in obsessive – compulsive symptoms in an undergraduate sample. Depression and Anxiety, 19, 174– 179. doi:10. 1002/da.20005 Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004b). The presence of magical thinking in obsessive compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 539– 549. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967 (03)00160-8 Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2006). Magical thinking in obsessive – compulsive disorder, panic disorder and the general community. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 34, 351–357. doi:10.1017/s1352465806002864 Einstein, D.A., Menzies, R.G., St Clare, T., Drobny, J., & Helgadottir, F.D. (2011). The treatment of magical ideation in obsessive – compulsive disorder. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 4, 16 –29. Retrieved from http:// www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
Enns, M.W., & Cox, B.J. (2002). Nature and assessment of perfectionism. In G.L. Flett & P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 33 – 62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fergus, T.A., & Wu, K.D. (2010). Do symptoms of generalized anxiety and obsessive– compulsive disorder share cognitive processes? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 168– 176. doi:10. 1007/s10608-009-9239-9 Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449– 468. doi:10.1007/bf01172967 Handley, A.K., Egan, S.J., Kane, R.T., & Rees, C. S. (2014). The relationships between perfectionism, pathological worry and generalised anxiety disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 1 – 8. doi:10. 1186/1471-244X-14-98 Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1 – 55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Khawaja, N.G., & McMahon, J. (2011). The relationship of meta-worry and intolerance of uncertainty with pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Behaviour Change, 28, 165– 180. doi:10.1375/bech.28.4.165 Kingdon, B.L., Egan, S.J., & Rees, C.S. (2012). The Illusory Beliefs Inventory: A new measure of magical thinking and its relationship with obsessive compulsive disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 40, 39 – 53. doi:10. 1017/S1352465811000245 Leary, M.R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371– 375. doi:10.1177/ 0146167283093007 McEvoy, P.M., & Mahoney, A.E.J. (2013). Intolerance of uncertainty and negative metacognitive beliefs as transdiagnostic mediators of repetitive negative thinking in a clinical sample with anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27, 216– 224. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis. 2013.01.006 Meyer, T.J., Miller, M.L., Metzger, R.L., & Borkovec, T.D. (1990). Development and validation of the penn state worry questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487– 495. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6 Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG) (2001). Development and initial validation of the obsessive beliefs questionnaire and the interpretation of intrusions inventory. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 987– 1006. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00085-1 Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., Thissen, D.M., Heimberg, R.G., Chambless, D.L., & Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: The factor structure and item properties of the original and brief fear of negative evaluation scale. Psychological Assessment, 16, 169– 181. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.2. 169
VOL 43, NO 3, 2014
Downloaded by [University of Maastricht] at 20:51 07 July 2014
Shafran, R., Thordarson, D.S., & Rachman, S. (1996). Thought – action fusion in obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 10, 379– 391. doi:10.1016/0887-6185(96) 00018-7 Starcevic, V., & Berle, D. (2006). Cognitive specificity of anxiety disorders: A review of selected key constructs. Depression and Anxiety, 23, 51 – 61. doi:10.1002/da.20145 Sto¨ ber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism: Differentiating amount of worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 49 – 60. doi: 10.1023/ a:1026474715384 Tolin, D.F., Woods, C.M., & Abramowitz, J.S. (2003). Relationship between obsessive beliefs
Magical Thinking
261
and obsessive– compulsive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 657– 669. doi:10. 1023/a:1026351711837 Weeks, J.W., Heimberg, R.G., Fresco, D.M., Hart, T.A., Turk, C.L., Schneier, F.R., & Liebowitz, M.R. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the brief fear ofnegative evaluation scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment, 17, 179– 190. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.179 West, B., & Willner, P. (2011). Magical thinking in obsessive – compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviouraland Cognitive Psychotherapy, 39, 399 – 411. doi:10.1017/ S1352465810000883
