University of Waterloo psychology researchers are studying why people end up repeatedly checking locks, doors, stoves, and appliances
WATERLOO, Ont. (Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011) - University of Waterloo psychology researchers are studying why people end up repeatedly checking locks, doors, stoves, and appliances. Their early findings suggest that checking things more than once is not really worth the effort.
The Waterloo researchers, based in the Centre for Mental Health Research's Anxiety Studies Division, are attempting to understand why once is seldom enough for some people when it comes to checking whether the door is locked or the stove turned off.
The researchers are seeking new participants for their ongoing study of checking, which is due to conclude in 2012. People who have difficulties with checking are invited to participate.
"When checking takes more than an hour over the course of the day, causes a lot of distress and/or interferes with one's ability to function at work or at home, it can be a symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)," said Christine Purdon, professor of psychology.
In Ontario alone, more than 26,000 people are likely to suffer with OCD.
"We all have little checking routines, but when we are anxious our checking can become a serious challenge," said Purdon, who is working on the study with graduate student Bianca Bucarelli. "For some people, checking has become a way of life. In order to study why people get stuck checking and re-checking, we are using video and eye-tracking technology to follow people as they complete a checking task."
So far, preliminary findings - based on about 40 participants - suggest that there's no point in checking repeatedly.
In the study, participants complete a checking task while wearing a portable device that records their eye movements, which indicates what has captured their attention. But does focusing so intently on checking actually pay off? The answer is no, according to the preliminary findings.
"Our early findings are telling an interesting story," Purdon said. "The more harm people think will come from not checking properly, the more focused they become on checking and the less attentive they become to other things around them. But what we are finding is that the more effort they put into checking, the less confident they are afterwards that they checked properly and the more harm they think will come of having not checked properly. Thus the more you check the less certain you become that everything is safe and the more you want to check again."
What the researchers think is happening is that the more people are concerned about harm, the more they focus their attention on the item they are checking at the expense of other details in the situation. Afterward, when mentally going through the check, they find themselves unable to remember the details of the situation well enough to trust that the check had been done properly.
Furthermore, they have had time to dwell on the harm that failing to check properly may cause. This together produces a strong urge to check again.
More research, though, is required to better understand these processes.
To participate in the study or find out more information, contact Bianca Bucarelli at 519-888-4567 ext. 38809 or visit anxietystudies.uwaterloo.ca.
