Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:14:22.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Anxiety sensitivity and disgust sensitivity predict blood-injection-injury fears in individuals with dental anxiety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2023

Jedidiah Siev*
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Rachel H. Sinex
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Samantha D. Sorid
Affiliation:
College of William & Mary, Department of Psychological Sciences, Williamsburg, VA, USA
Evelyn Behar
Affiliation:
City University of New York – Hunter College, Department of Psychology, New York, USA
*
Corresponding author: Jedidiah Siev; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Anxiety sensitivity (AS) and disgust sensitivity (DS) are transdiagnostic vulnerability factors for anxiety. Both correlate with blood-injection-injury (BII) phobia symptoms in several studies; however, there is ambiguity about their relative contributions, and studies investigating this have relied on unselected samples. Furthermore, although DS reliably predicts BII in studies that do not account for AS, this may be limited to domain-specific DS rather than DS more broadly.

Aims:

The aims of this study were to examine AS and DS as separate and simultaneous predictors of BII fears in a sample with a wide range of BII symptoms, and with attention to the specificity of DS to BII-relevant domains.

Method:

Fifty-three participants who scored above a clinical threshold on a validated measure of dental anxiety, and who represented a wide range of BII severity, completed measures of AS, DS and BII symptoms.

Results:

AS and DS were moderately to strongly correlated with BII severity (r = .40 and .47, p = .004 and <.001), and both independently predicted BII severity when entered as simultaneous predictors (β = .32 and .35, p = .045 and .015). Furthermore, after omitting DS about injections and blood draws, domain-general DS was still moderately correlated with BII severity (r = .33, p = .017). However, domain-general DS did not significantly predict BII severity after accounting for AS (β = .20, p = .164).

Conclusions:

AS and DS both predict BII symptoms, and prospective research is warranted to examine them as potential vulnerability factors.

Type
Brief Clinical Report
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/), which permits re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies

Introduction

Researchers have examined a range of transdiagnostic vulnerability factors for blood-injection-injury (BII) fears, including anxiety sensitivity (AS) and disgust sensitivity (DS). However, few studies simultaneously consider multiple factors, especially in samples where BII is elevated and there is a broad range of BII symptoms, as is the case among individuals with dental anxiety.

AS is the fear of arousal-related sensations due to the belief that such sensations will lead to adverse physical, cognitive or social consequences (e.g. Reiss et al., Reference Reiss, Peterson, Gursky and McNally1986). Several studies have reported a small-to-moderate positive relationship between AS and BII symptoms (e.g. Cisler et al., Reference Cisler, Olatunji, Sawchuk and Lohr2008; Winder et al., Reference Winder, Mangen, Martinez-Snyder and Valentiner2021). DS is the propensity to experience disgust in response to unpleasant stimuli (e.g. Haidt et al., Reference Haidt, McCauley and Rozin1994). Studies have consistently found strong correlations between BII fears and disgust (e.g. Bianchi and Carter, Reference Bianchi and Carter2012). Additionally, there is evidence that certain domains of disgust may be more strongly associated with BII fears than others. For example, Bianchi and Carter (Reference Bianchi and Carter2012) found that BII phobics evidenced greater DS with regard to injections, blood draws and mutilation (compared with animals, rotting foods, and odours). Thus, in comparison with other fears, BII fears may be uniquely characterized by sensitivity to disgust regarding blood, injections, injury and violations to the body envelope.

Although the aforementioned studies indicate that at least some types of AS and DS correlate with BII symptoms, their relative contributions remain ambiguous. Cisler et al. (Reference Cisler, Olatunji, Sawchuk and Lohr2008) found that both AS and DS independently predicted BII fears; however, although the interaction of AS and DS predicted contamination fears, it did not predict BII fears. Winder et al. (Reference Winder, Mangen, Martinez-Snyder and Valentiner2021) found that DS predicted BII fears after controlling for AS, but AS no longer predicted BII after controlling for DS. This finding not only supports the likely prominence of disgust in BII fears, but it also may provide counterevidence for the centrality of AS in BII. Critically, both studies used unselected non-clinical samples. Furthermore, although DS reliably predicts BII in studies that do not account for AS, this may be limited to domain-specific DS (e.g. Bianchi and Carter, Reference Bianchi and Carter2012) rather than DS more broadly.

In the current study, we examined AS and DS as separate and simultaneous predictors of BII symptoms in a sample of participants who scored above a clinical threshold on a validated measure of dental anxiety, and who represented a wide range of BII severity. Considering that DS about injections and blood draws is similar to symptoms of BII, we tested both total DS (including DS about injections and blood draws) as well as DS excluding domain-specific DS about injections and blood draws.

Method

Participants

Participants were 53 individuals who scored above a clinical threshold on a validated self-report measure of dental anxiety and participated in a study of attentional processes in dental anxiety (Siev et al., Reference Siev, Behar and Fortune2020). Exclusion criteria included presence of a psychotic or bipolar disorder, substance abuse or dependence, suicidality or homicidality, as well as evidence of intellectual disability, dementia, brain damage, or other cognitive impairment. Participants were required to be between the ages of 18 and 65 years old, and the mean age was 39.96 years (SD = 14.89). Forty-two (79.2%) participants were women and 11 (20.8%) were men. Racially, 31 (58.5%) were white, 11 (20.8%) Black or African-American, 10 (18.9%) Asian or Asian-American, and one (1.9%) multiracial. Forty-three (81.1%) identified as non-Hispanic, and 10 (18.9%) as Hispanic.

Measures

Participants were screened for study eligibility using a validated self-report measure of dental anxiety. As part of a larger study of dental anxiety (Siev et al., Reference Siev, Behar and Fortune2020), eligible participants completed validated self-report measures of BII symptoms (Injection Phobia Scale-Anxiety; Olatunji et al., Reference Olatunji, Sawchuk, Moretz, David, Armstrong and Ciesielski2010; Öst et al., Reference Öst, Hellström and Kåver1992), AS (Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Zvolensky, Cox, Deacon, Heimberg, Ledley, Abramowitz, Holaway, Sandin, Stewart, Coles, Eng, Daly, Arrindell, Bouvard and Cardenas2007), and DS (Disgust Emotions Scale; Olatunji et al., Reference Olatunji, Sawchuk, de Jong and Lohr2007). In the present study, we used the total score of the DS measure. In order to examine the association between BII and domain-general DS, we also created a DS score omitting items about injections and blood draws, which overlap with the measure of BII symptoms. See the extended report in the Supplementary material for full descriptions of study measures, as well as how missing data were handled.

Results

Participants’ BII symptom scores were elevated and also indicated a broad range of BII symptoms, M = 29.51, SD = 17.08. As a benchmark, IPS-Anx scores in normative data were M = 44.84, SD = 8.86 for BII phobics, and M = 9.20, SD = 11.40 for non-phobic controls (Olatunji et al., Reference Olatunji, Sawchuk, Moretz, David, Armstrong and Ciesielski2010). For descriptive data and intercorrelations among study measures, see Table 1.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations among study variables (n = 53)

IPS-Anx, Injection Phobia Scale-Anxiety (possible range: 0–72); ASI-3, Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (possible range: 0–72); DES-Total, Disgust Emotion Scale-Total score (possible range: 0–120); DES-Inj, Disgust Emotion Scale-Injections and Blood Draws Scale (possible range: 0–24); DES-NonBII, Disgust Emotion Scale-Total score excluding the Injections and Blood Draws Scale; possible range: 0–96).

*p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

BII severity correlated with AS (r = .40, p = .004) and with DS (r = .47, p < .001). We regressed BII symptom severity on AS (centred), DS (centred), and their interaction. Tests of heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity and the distribution of residuals indicated appropriate normality and sufficient independence of variables. The model accounted for 28% of the variance in BII severity, F 3,45 = 5.86, p = .002. Both AS (β = .32, t = 2.07, p = .045) and DS (β = .35, t = 2.54, p = .015) independently predicted BII symptom severity when controlling for the other variable. Their interaction was not significant, β = –.13, t = –0.89, p = .379.

Disgust sensitivity about injections and blood draws may simply be a proxy measure of BII fear, as evidenced by the strong correlation between the DS injections and blood draws subscale and BII symptom measure (r = .75, p < .001). We therefore omitted DS items about injections and blood draws, and created a composite score of non-BII-related DS using items about mutilation and death, animals, rotting foods, and smells (DS-NonBII). BII severity correlated with this composite, r = .33, p = .017. We regressed BII symptom severity on AS (centred), DS-NonBII (centred), and their interaction. Again, tests of heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity, and the distribution of residuals were not concerning. Together, the predictors accounted for 22% of the variance in BII severity, F 3,45 = 4.23, p = .010. Only AS independently predicted BII symptoms, β = .40, t = 2.60, p = .013. Neither DS-NonBII (β = .20, t = 1.42, p = .164) nor the interaction between AS and DS-NonBII (β = –.17, t = –1.18, p = .245) were significant.

Discussion

In a clinical sample of individuals with dental anxiety and elevated BII fears, AS and DS both independently predicted BII symptoms, but did not interact with each other in so doing. Moreover, in contrast with some studies that implicate only domain-specific DS in BII phobia, our findings implicate domain-general DS (viz. DS omitting items about injections and blood draws) as well, although not after accounting for AS.

Two previous studies of non-clinical samples have reported similar analyses, and our results are consistent with one (Cisler et al., Reference Cisler, Olatunji, Sawchuk and Lohr2008) and stand in contrast to the other (Winder et al., Reference Winder, Mangen, Martinez-Snyder and Valentiner2021). Specifically, whereas Winder and colleagues found that only DS – but not AS – predicted BII symptoms when entered as simultaneous predictors, in the present sample, both AS and DS independently predicted BII symptoms. In fact, only AS predicted BII symptoms when considering only non-BII-related DS, although this may be an issue of power, considering that the effect was in the same direction. However, Winder and colleagues report a negligible and non-significant partial correlation of only .05 between BII fear and AS when covarying DS, whereas in the present study AS was a strong predictor of BII symptoms when covarying DS.

In considering these discrepancies, there are features of the present sample that make it better suited to address these research questions. All participants in the present study scored above a clinical cut-off on a validated measure of dental anxiety, which is related to BII phobia. As a result, they scored considerably higher as a group on BII symptoms compared with non-clinical samples (e.g. Olatunji et al., Reference Olatunji, Sawchuk, Moretz, David, Armstrong and Ciesielski2010). Moreover, there was a wide range of BII scores. As a result, this sample is well-suited to examine correlates of BII symptoms because the symptom elevations are clinically meaningful for many participants, and not limited by restricted range, as might be the case in both non-clinical as well as BII phobic samples.

Although AS and DS are generally conceptualized as vulnerability factors for psychopathology, it is important to note that the cross-sectional nature of the present data cannot speak to temporal relationships and thus cannot rule out the possibility that BII symptoms lead to increased AS or DS. This is arguably more likely with DS, where it is conceivable that one develops a disgust response to a phobic stimulus one finds aversive; in contrast, AS is not specific to the phobic stimulus and is therefore unlikely to develop as a response to the feared stimulus. However, it is unlikely that non-domain-specific DS would be an epiphenomenon of BII symptoms, and therefore seems doubtful that DS is simply the result of BII symptoms.

We acknowledge several limitations to the present research. Although the composition of our sample is a strength in several ways, 53 participants was under-powered to detect small effects or test interactions. It is possible that in a larger sample, domain general DS predicts BII symptoms even after controlling for AS, whereas in this study the effect (β = .20) did not reach significance. In addition, with women composing the large majority of participants in our sample, we were not able to examine possible gender effects related to AS and DS. Finally, cross-sectional data such as these do not permit firm conclusions about causality, temporality or theoretically driven judgements about factors assumed to confer risk or vulnerability.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465823000310

Data availability statement

The dataset is available on the OSF website (https://osf.io/rbzdx).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Alex Jendrusina, Meghan Fortune, Allyson Bontempo, Falguni Patel, Giovanna Rivano de Gómez, Jamie Ginberg, Joe Slimowicz, Shaina Fieldstone and Victoria Schlaudt for their work as research assistants, and An Nguyen, Ana Karina Mascarenhas, Lizania Montero and Shadzi Jebraeili, for assistance with recruitment.

Author contributions

Jedidiah Siev: Conceptualization (lead), Data curation (equal), Formal analysis (lead), Funding acquisition (lead), Investigation (lead), Methodology (equal), Project administration (lead), Resources (equal), Supervision (equal), Writing – original draft (lead), Writing – review & editing (lead); Rachel Sinex: Formal analysis (supporting), Investigation (supporting), Writing – original draft (supporting), Writing – review & editing (supporting); Samantha Sorid: Formal analysis (supporting), Investigation (supporting), Writing – original draft (supporting), Writing – review & editing (supporting); Evelyn Behar: Conceptualization (equal), Data curation (equal), Formal analysis (equal), Funding acquisition (equal), Investigation (equal), Methodology (equal), Project administration (equal), Resources (equal), Supervision (equal), Writing – original draft (equal), Writing – review & editing (equal).

Financial support

This work was supported by a President’s Faculty Research and Development Grant from Nova Southeastern University.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

Ethical standards

This research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and with the approvals of the Institutional Review Boards at Nova Southeastern University (protocol 12041203) and the University of Illinois at Chicago (protocol 2014-0005). All participants provided informed consent.

References

Bianchi, K. N., & Carter, M. M. (2012). An experimental analysis of disgust sensitivity and fear of contagion in spider and blood injection injury phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26, 753761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.06.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cisler, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., & Lohr, J. M. (2008). Specificity of emotional maintenance processes among contamination fears and blood-injection-injury fears. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 915923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.09.006 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: a scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701713. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90212-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., de Jong, P. J., & Lohr, J. M. (2007). Disgust sensitivity and anxiety disorder symptoms: psychometric properties of the Disgust Emotion Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 115124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9027-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olatunji, B. O., Sawchuk, C. N., Moretz, M. W., David, B., Armstrong, T., & Ciesielski, B. G. (2010). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Injection Phobia Scale-Anxiety. Psychological Assessment, 22, 167179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018125 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öst, L.-G., Hellström, K., & Kåver, A. (1992). One versus five sessions of exposure in the treatment of injection phobia. Behavior Therapy, 23, 263281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80385-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, S., Peterson, R. A., Gursky, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (1986). Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the prediction of fearfulness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24, 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(86)90143-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siev, J., Behar, E., & Fortune, M. R. (2020). Attentional bias and training in individuals with high dental anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01057 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S., Zvolensky, M. J., Cox, B. J., Deacon, B., Heimberg, R. G., Ledley, D. R., Abramowitz, J. S., Holaway, R. M., Sandin, B., Stewart, S. H., Coles, M., Eng, W., Daly, E. S., Arrindell, W. A., Bouvard, M., & Cardenas, S. J. (2007). Robust dimensions of anxiety sensitivity: development and initial validation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3. Psychological Assessment, 19, 176188. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.176 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winder, J., Mangen, K., Martinez-Snyder, A., & Valentiner, D. (2021). Anxiety sensitivity, disgust sensitivity and aversive reactions to four stimuli. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 49, 206217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465820000570 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations among study variables (n = 53)

Supplementary material: File

Siev et al. supplementary material

Siev et al. supplementary material

Download Siev et al. supplementary material(File)
File 53.2 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.