1 - (SYM 46) Ambiguity Limits Risk Taking for Both Patients with OCD and Non-psychiatric Controls

Abstract Body

In clinical settings, patients with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) are generally risk averse, especially in the context of uncertainty. However, the literature examining risk taking in OCD is conflicting, and studies directly comparing risk taking under conditions of high vs. low ambiguity are scant. Accordingly, in the current study, 60 participants (30 OCD, 30 non-psychiatric controls; M age = 32.6, 65.0% Female, 78.3% White) completed a modified version of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Smith et al., 2016) in which they earned five cents for each balloon pump; however, if the balloon popped, they lost the money accumulated on that round (60 rounds total). Balloons had three explosion rates (specified by the likelihood a balloon would pop on the first pump: 1/20, 1/40, and 1/60) and two levels of ambiguity (whether the explosion rate was visually displayed [low ambiguity] or unknown [high ambiguity]). The outcome was the mean-adjusted pump score (average number of pumps for balloons that did not explode), with higher scores indicating more risk taking. In line with previous studies, we found a main effect of ambiguity (p < .001, η_p² = .45), such that all participants took more risks on the low ambiguity version (when information about the explosion likelihood was known) compared to the high ambiguity version. However, contrary to hypotheses, there was no main effect of OCD diagnosis (p = .88, ηp² < .01) nor an ambiguity x diagnosis interaction (p = .95, ηp² < .01), indicating that the main effect of ambiguity held for individuals with and without OCD. Self-reported intolerance of uncertainty (IU) was also not a significant predictor of risk taking. Among the OCD subgroup, however, we found that as self-reported IU (p = .005, η_p² = .25), OCD symptoms (p = .003, η_p² = .28), trait anxiety (p = .01, η_p² = .21), and depression severity (p = .01, η_p² = .20) each increased within the OCD group, risk taking decreased (for both ambiguity versions combined). Thus, while OCD diagnosis did not predict risk taking behavior, OCD symptom severity was an important predictor within the OCD group – underscoring the importance of dimensional measurement beyond mere presence or absence of diagnosis when predicting risk aversion in OCD. Within the OCD group, we also examined OCD subtypes as exploratory predictors and found that as responsibility for harm concerns (p = .035, ηp² = .15) and unacceptable thoughts (p = .04, ηp² = .14) increased, risk taking on the BART decreased (regardless of task ambiguity) indicating that these presentations of OCD may especially impact risk taking.