This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht]On: 07 July 2014, At: 20:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cognitive Behaviour TherapyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sbeh20

Evaluation of Magical Thinking:Validation of the Illusory BeliefsInventorySarah Shihataa, Sarah J. Egana & Clare S. Reesa

a School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University,Perth, AustraliaPublished online: 24 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Sarah Shihata, Sarah J. Egan & Clare S. Rees (2014) Evaluation of MagicalThinking: 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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

Evaluation of Magical Thinking: Validation of theIllusory Beliefs Inventory

Sarah Shihata, Sarah J. Egan and Clare S. Rees

School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Abstract.Magical thinking has been related to obsessive–compulsive disorder; yet, little research hasexamined this construct in other anxiety disorders. The Illusory Beliefs Inventory (IBI) is a recentlydeveloped measure of magical thinking. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometricproperties of this new measure and to determine if magical thinking accounts for pathological worrybeyond the well-researched constructs of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and perfectionism. A sampleof 502 participants completed an online survey. Confirmatory factor analysis identified a three-factorsolution 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 predictedpathological worry; however, magical thinking accounted for less than 1% of unique variance inworry, suggesting that it is not strongly related to worry. Further investigation regarding the validityand 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, CurtinUniversity, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6847, Australia. Tel:þ61 89266 2367. Fax:þ61 89266 3178.Email: s.egan@curtin.edu.au

The Obsessive Compulsive CognitionsWorking Group (OCCWG, 2001) identifiedthree key domains that maintain obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD; Tolin, Woods, &Abramowitz, 2003). The key domains includeinflated responsibility and overestimationof threat, perfectionism and intolerance ofuncertainty (IU) and importance of thought(Tolin et al., 2003). Magical thinking issuggested to play an aetiological role inOCD and is a salient predictor of OCDsymptoms (Einstein & Menzies, 2004b).Further exploration of these variables mayhelp to advance the theory and treatment ofOCD and other disorders.

The over-importance of thought is a centralcognitive distortion in OCD and comprisesmagical thinking, superstitious thinking andthought–action fusion (TAF). Magical think-ing refers to beliefs that are inconsistent withscientific or culturally accepted laws ofcausality (Einstein & Menzies, 2004a, 2006).Magical thinking includes superstitious think-ing, TAF, paranormal phenomena, and

religious beliefs (Kingdon, Egan, & Rees,2012).

The most extensively used measure ofmagical thinking is Eckblad and Chapman’s(1983) Magical Ideation Scale (MIS). TheMIS was not established to assess magicalthinking in the general population, but ratherto identify individuals at risk for psychosis andso does not represent a “pure” measure ofmagical thinking (Kingdon et al., 2012).Kingdon et al. (2012) argued that this isproblematic, as psychotic symptoms areirrelevant to magical thinking in OCD.

To address limitations of measures ofmagical thinking, Kingdon et al. (2012)developed the Illusory Beliefs Inventory(IBI), a new measure of magical thinking foruse in both the general population and clinicalOCD population. The IBI was developedthrough the generation of an initial item poolwhere items were included following a reviewof established measures, and new items weredeveloped via consultation with clinicians whowere OCD experts (Kingdon et al., 2012). TheIBI was developed to not only measure

q 2014 Swedish Association for Behaviour Therapy

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 2014

Vol. 43, No. 3, 251–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2014.926391

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

magical thinking but also encompass TAFand superstition. Item content reflected magi-cal thinking, the idea that events are the resultof magic, belief in a higher power or guidingforce, that thoughts predict events and generalmagical and religious beliefs (Kingdon et al.,2012). In a nonclinical sample, exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) were used to derive the 24-itemIBI, which comprised three factors: MagicalBeliefs, Spirituality and Internal State–Thought Fusion (Kingdon et al., 2012). Ahierarchical three-factor structure of the IBIwas most parsimonious relative to a four-factor model suggesting the factors are drivenby a higher-order “magical thinking”(Kingdon et al., 2012). The results alsoindicated an association between OCD symp-tomatology and magical thinking in thegeneral population. Further exploration ofthe psychometric properties of the IBI isrequired, along with the investigation ofwhether the IBI relates to other constructswith which it is theoretically associated.Limited research has explored magical

thinking in anxiety disorders (West & Willner,2011). Einstein and Menzies (2006) found thatOCD patients had significantly higher MISscores than control and panic disorder groupsand concluded that magical ideation is adistinguishing feature of OCD, but not centralto other anxiety disorders. However, theconclusions were beyond the scope of theirfindings, as the participant sample onlycomprised panic disorder and OCD. None-theless, no relationship between magicalthinking and social anxiety is anticipated(Einstein & Menzies, 2006).Conceptualisations of OCD and generalised

anxiety disorder (GAD) illustrate anoverlap between obsessions and pathologicalworry (e.g., Barlow, Sauer-Zavala, Carl,Bullis, & Ellard, 2012). Individuals withelevated worry may engage in magical think-ing as a strategy against feared outcomes andto attain control in stressful situations (Barlowet al., 2012). Further, TAF is a salient featurein OCD and GAD (Coles, Mennin, &Heimberg, 2001); thus, magical thinking mayrelate 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). Therewere no differences between MIS scores in the

OCD and GAD groups, emphasising thatmagical thinking may also be a feature ofGAD. However, the findings may be restricteddue to the small sample and group non-equivalence (Fergus & Wu, 2010). Further,diagnostic interviews were not conducted(West & Willner, 2011). A better approachwould be to explore the relationship betweenmagical thinking and pathological worry in amore dimensional nature in a nonclinicalpopulation (Starcevic & Berle, 2006). Further,given limitations of the MIS, the IBI mayrepresent a more valid measure in assessingmagical thinking and worry, in relation toperfectionism and IU which are also centralcognitive constructs in OCD.Perfectionism refers to high personal stan-

dards associated with critical self-evaluation(Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990).Egan, Wade, and Shafran (2011) demon-strated that perfectionism is “transdiagnos-tic”, as it occurs across depression, OCD,anxiety disorders and eating disorders diag-noses. Perfectionism is significantly related toworry in nonclinical (Stober & 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 atransdiagnostic risk factor as it is heightenedin OCD, social anxiety, panic disorder andGAD (Carleton, 2012; Carleton et al., 2012;Khawaja & McMahon, 2011). IU is aprominent predictor of worry in both clinicaland nonclinical samples (Buhr & Dugas, 2009,2012). Buhr and Dugas (2006) found thatwhen compared with perfectionism, IU sharedthe strongest relationship with worry.In line with the continuum view of OCD

and worry, several characteristics of thedisorder do not differ qualitatively across thepopulation (Barlow et al., 2012). Thus, it iscommon to examine psychopathology from adimensional perspective in nonclinical popu-lations to enable participation of broadergroups and to identify relationships betweenvariables which further research can explore ina clinical population (Fergus & Wu, 2010).Addressing this disparity in the literature hassignificant clinical implications as treatmentadvancements are dependent on the validityand reliability of measures (Duke, Krishnan,Faith, & Storch, 2006). If magical thinking is

252 Shihata, Egan and Rees COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

related to an array of psychopathologies, itmay suggest a valuable target for intervention(West & Willner, 2011).

The focus of the study is, first, to examinethe reliability and validity of the IBI for use inthe general population. To date, only onestudy has investigated the psychometricproperties of the IBI (Kingdon et al., 2012).Magical thinking must be accurately measuredto determine its association with OCD andother psychopathologies. Second, as part ofestablishing discriminant and convergentvalidity of the IBI, this study will explore therole of magical thinking in pathological worry,in relation to IU and perfectionism which arecentral to worry and OCD.

The aim was to evaluate the psychometricproperties of the IBI and explore therelationship between magical thinking, IUand perfectionism in pathological worry. Itwas hypothesised that the hierarchical three-factor structure identified by Kingdon et al.(2012) would be a better fit of the data than aone-factor and a three-factor solution.Further, it was hypothesised that the IBIwould demonstrate acceptable internal con-sistency and test–retest reliability. It waspredicted that the IBI would demonstrateconvergent validity with the Penn State WorryQuestionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metz-ger, & Borkovec, 1990) and discriminantvalidity with the Brief Fear of NegativeEvaluation Scale (BFNE-S; Rodebaughet al., 2004; Weeks et al., 2005). It washypothesised that magical thinking, IU andperfectionism would each predict a significantand unique proportion of the variance inpathological worry.

Method

Research designA cross-sectional correlational design wasused with the predictor variables of magicalthinking, perfectionism and IU. The criterionvariable is pathological worry.

ParticipantsThere were 502 participants (65% female,35% male) recruited through snowball andconvenience sampling, aged 18–73 years[M ¼ 29.98, standard deviation (SD) ¼11.57]. Participants resided predominantly inAustralia (n ¼ 336), although other countries

included USA (n ¼ 89), Canada (n ¼ 17) andthe UK (n ¼ 10). Invitations to participatewere distributed through social networkingsites such as Facebook pages related to generalpsychology and research, science and scepti-cism. Further, invitations to participate wereadvertised through emails, online psychologi-cal research discussion boards and thedistribution of flyers over an 8-week period.Eligibility criteria required participants to beover 18 years of age. Following completion ofthe questionnaire, participants were eligible toenter a prize draw for one of two $100 giftcards.

An a priori power analysis for the CFAbased on five participants per parameterestimated that 270 participants were required;thus, the sample was sufficient.

MeasuresIllusory Beliefs Inventory (Kingdon et al.,2012). The IBI is a 24-item measure ofmagical thinking. The IBI comprises threesubscales: Magical Beliefs (general magicaland superstitious beliefs; 10 items), Spiritual-ity (religious philosophies and beliefs in aspiritual presence; 9 items) and InternalState–Thought Fusion (related to TAF,including an appraisal of intuitive states andpremonition; 5 items). Items are scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree), with higher scores indicatinghigher magical thinking. Seven items arereverse-scored. The IBI demonstrates goodreliability, convergent, discriminant, concur-rent and divergent validity (Kingdon et al.,2012). In the present study, the IBI had goodinternal consistency for the total scale(a ¼ .92) and the subscales of Magical Beliefs(a ¼ .82), Spirituality (a ¼ .91) and InternalState–Thought Fusion (a ¼ .79).Penn State Worry Questionnaire (Meyer et al.,1990). The PSWQ is a 16-item measure ofpathological worry. Responses are scored on a5-point scale, from 1 (not at all typical of me)to 5 (very typical of me). Five items are reverse-scored. High scores reflect higher levels ofworry. The PSWQ had excellent internalconsistency in this study (a ¼ .95).Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Short Form(Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007). TheIntolerance of Uncertainty Scale, Short Form(IUS-12) is a revised 12-item measure thatcentres on negative beliefs regarding uncer-

VOL 43, NO 3, 2014 Magical Thinking 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

tainty. Items are scored on a 5-point scale,from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5(entirely characteristic of me). Higher scoresindicate higher IU. The IUS-12 comprises twofactors; Prospective IU and Inhibitory IU.Consistent with prior research (McEvoy &Mahoney, 2013), the total score was used. TheIUS-12 has good convergent and discriminantvalidity (Carleton, 2012; McEvoy & Maho-ney, 2013). The IUS-12 had excellent internalconsistency in this study (a ¼ .90).Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale(Frost et al., 1990): Concern over Mistakes.The Frost Multidimensional PerfectionismScale (FMPS) is a 35-item measure ofperfectionism consisting of Personal Stan-dards, Concern over Mistakes (CM), Doubtsabout Actions, Parental Expectations, Par-ental Criticism and Organisation. The CMsubscale is most correlated with psychologicaldistress (Egan et al., 2011). Responses arescored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with high scoresindicating 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 aneight-item measure of social anxiety. TheBFNE-S is a revised version including thestraightforward-worded items from the orig-inal BFNE (Leary, 1983; Weeks et al., 2005).Items are scored on a 5-point scale rangingfrom 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5(extremely characteristic of me), with higherscores indicating greater fear of negative socialevaluation. The BFNE-S has good reliabilityand validity (Carleton, Collimore, McCabe, &Antony, 2011) and excellent internal consist-ency in this study (a ¼ .94).

ProcedureEthics approval was obtained from the CurtinUniversity Human Research Ethics Commit-tee. Participants were directed to an onlinequestionnaire hosted by Qualtrics after read-ing a consent form. Participants were thengiven the option to participate in a follow-up measure of the IBI 4 weeks after initialcompletion, and those consenting were con-tacted via email 4 weeks later. Participants

received a debrief explanation and were giventhe chance to enter a prize draw.

AnalysesStatistical analyses were conducted in twophases. EFA was performed to assess theunderlying structure of the IBI. CFA wasconducted to evaluate the hypothesised factorstructure of the IBI. Following recommen-dations by Hu and Bentler (1999), a combi-nation of fit indices were used to evaluatemodel fit. Models were evaluated as a good fitwhen the root mean square error of approxi-mation and standardised root mean squareresidual were close to or less than .06 and .08,respectively, and when the comparative fitindex, non-normed fit index and normed fitindex were approximately .95. The x 2

difference test was used to statisticallycompare models. Bivariate correlations wereused to assess construct validity and test–retest reliability. Research demonstrates gen-der differences in worry with females reportinghigher levels of worry (Meyer et al., 1990).Thus, to identify control variables forinclusion in the regression analyses, potentialgender and age based differences in PSWQscores were assessed via point biserial andcorrelation coefficients, respectively.Regression analyses were used to assess thepredictive value of magical thinking, IU andperfectionism in worry. Variables were enteredin the following order; gender and age(Step 1), IU (Step 2), magical thinking andperfectionism (Step 3). The order of entryfollowed the usual practice of enteringdemographic control variables initially. IUwas entered on Step 2, followed by magicalthinking and perfectionism, due to its promi-nence in predicting worry.

Results

Missing values analysis indicated a significantLittle’s Missing Completely at Random test,x 2(900) ¼ 9698.54, p , .001, suggesting thedata was not missing at random. Only 0.25%of data was identified as missing, with nosingle variable having missing data exceeding5% (highest percentage ¼ 0.99%). Thus,missing data was replaced using ExpectationMaximisation. Descriptive statistics can beseen in Table 1. An independent samples t-testwas used to compare individuals with high and

254 Shihata, Egan and Rees COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

low PSWQ scores in relation to total IBIscores. Individuals who reported high levels ofworry had significantly higher IBI scores thanthose who reported low levels of worry, t(248) ¼ 22.96, p ¼ .003, d ¼ 0.37.

Exploratory factor analysisAn EFA was conducted to assess theunderlying factor structure of the IBI.Following Costello and Osborne’s (2005)guidelines, data was subject to maximumlikelihood with Promax rotation. The Kaiserrule and inspection of the scree test suggestedthe presence of two factors. Thus, data wasgenerated to fit a one-, two-, three- and four-factor model. Examination of the patternmatrix revealed the best defined factorstructure comprised three factors accountingfor 47.75% of the total variance. Factor 1(Spirituality) accounted for 32.56% of var-iance, Factor 2 (Internal State–ThoughtFusion), 11.24% and Factor 3 (MagicalBeliefs), 3.95% as seen in Table 2. Moderateto strong correlations were observed betweenSpirituality and Internal State–ThoughtFusion (r ¼ .46), Spirituality and MagicalBeliefs (r ¼ .36) and Internal State–ThoughtFusion and Magical Beliefs (r ¼ .61).

Confirmatory factor analysisACFAwas conducted using LISREL (version8.80) to confirm and assess the relative fit ofthe hierarchical three-factor structure of theIBI examined in Kingdon et al. (2012). Resultsindicated that the hierarchical model provideda poor fit, meeting none of the criterion values

specified by Hu and Bentler (1999). Toexamine potential alternative factor solutions,the data was then fit to a unifactorial andthree-factor correlated model. The unidimen-sional model also failed to reach any of therecommended fit indices. However, the hier-archical and three-factor models provided animproved overall fit. Both the hierarchical andcorrelated three-factor models reported iden-tical fit to the data as seen in Table 3. A non-significant x 2 difference test between thehierarchical and three-factor model suggestedthat the three-factor model was the mostparsimonious model. While the preferredmodel, it should be noted that this three-factor model did not provide an excellent fit.There was no theoretical rationale based onexisting data on the IBI to evaluate a modelwith an alternative factor structure. Thecomparative fit indices between three possiblefactor solutions are illustrated in Table 3.

Test–retest reliabilityA subset of 164 of the 502 participantscompleted the measure a second time after a4–6-week interval (mean interval of 29 days).Significant, strong, positive correlations wereexamined between initial and retest periods forthe IBI total (r ¼ .94, p , .001), MagicalBeliefs (r ¼ .87, p , .001), Spirituality(r ¼ .95, p , .001) and Internal State–Thought Fusion (r ¼ .85, p , .001). All effectsizes were large ranging from .72 to .91.Strong, positive correlations support thetemporal stability of the IBI.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for measurement variables (N ¼ 502)

Scale M (SD) Observed range

IBITotal 58.56 (17.79) 24–107Magical Beliefs 20.23 (7.16) 10–43Spirituality 25.96 (9.81) 9–45Internal State–Thought Fusion 12.38 (4.56) 5–23

PSWQa 48.10 (14.81) 17–80IUS-12 25.86 (8.97) 12–57FMPS CM 22.14 (7.83) 8–45BFNE-S 20.60 (8.13) 8–40

Note. M, mean; SD, standard deviation.a Based on the clinical cut-off, the sample’s mean PSWQ score was indicative of clinically significant worrysymptoms.

VOL 43, NO 3, 2014 Magical Thinking 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

Convergent and discriminant validityBivariate 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 thePSWQ. Small, significant and positive corre-lations 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-signifi-cant correlations between Spirituality(r ¼ 2 .01, p ¼ .831) and the BFNE-S indi-cated discriminant validity.

Table 2. Promax rotated factor structure of the IBI (N ¼ 502)

No. Item SpiritualityInternal State–Thought Fusion

MagicalBeliefs

24. I believe in a higher power or God .8418. I believe guardian angels or other spiritual forces protect me .801. I use prayer to ward off misfortune .793. The soul does not continue to exist after death (R) .7423. I do not believe in a spiritual presence (R) .7319. Science is the key to understanding how things happen (R) .728. It is just a matter of time until science can explain

everything (R).71

21. There is an invisible force guiding us all .6313. Life is nothing more than a series of random events (R) .6222. You should never tempt fate .39 .3715. If I think too much about something, it will happen .976. If I think too much about something bad, it will happen .8610. Sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen,

before it happens.59

9. I do something special to prevent bad luck .4720. My thoughts alone can alter reality .462. I have sometimes changed my plans because I had a bad

feeling.42

16. I avoid unlucky numbers .3817. Most things that happen to us are the result of fate .31 .3412. Magic causes miracles to happen .774. I believe in magic .767. Magical forces have impacted on my life .7211. It is not possible to cast a magical spell (R) .30 .4314. Good luck charms do not work (R) .415. I sometimes perform special rituals for protection .27

Eigenvalues following rotation 7.82 2.70 .95

Note. .37, .31, .30, suppressed; R, reverse scored.

Table 3. Comparative model fit indices of IBI data (N ¼ 502)

Fit index 1 factor model 3 factor model Hierarchical model

CFI .83 .92 .92SRMR .15 .10 .10RMSEA [90% CI] .24 [.24, .25] .13 [.13, .14] .13 [.13, .14]NNFI .81 .91 .91NFI .82 .91 .91

Note. CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardised root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean squareerror of approximation; NNFI, non-normed fit index; NFI, normed fit index; CI, confidence interval.

256 Shihata, Egan and Rees COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

Predictors of pathological worryA hierarchical multiple regression was con-ducted to investigate whether magical think-ing, IU and perfectionism can predict worry.As gender and age were correlated with worry,they were controlled in the regression (seeTable 4). At Step 1, gender and age accountedfor a significant 11.30% of the variance inworry, 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, bothcontrol variables accounted for a significantportion of unique variance in worry, withgender 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 var-

iance, DR ¼ .049, F(4, 494) ¼ 12.58, p , .001.

In combination, the predictor variablesexplained 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 4. Bivariate correlation matrix for measurement and control variables (N ¼ 502)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. IBI Magical Beliefs –2. IBI Spirituality .52** –3. IBI Internal State–

Thought Fusion.63** .37** –

4. PSWQ .20** .11* .33** –5. IUS-12 .12** .08 .23** .63** –6. FMPS CM .07 2 .07 .22** .53** .57** –7. Gendera .21** .19** .18** .27** .06 .03 –8. Age 2 .12* .01 2 .16** 2 .22** 2 .18** 2 .17** 2 .11** –

*p , .05; **p , .001.a Gender coding: 0 ¼ Male; 1 ¼ Female.

Table 5. Unstandardised (B) and standardised (b) regression coefficients, and squared semi-partialcorrelations (sr2) for each predictor at each step of the hierarchical multiple regression predictingpathological worry (N ¼ 502)

B [95% CI] b sr2

Step 1Gender 7.82 [5.24, 10.41]** .25 .062Age 2 .25 [2 .36, 2 .15]** 2 .20 .038

Step 2Gender 7.59 [5.60, 9.59]** .25 .059Age 2 .17 [2 .25, 2 .09]** 2 .13 .017IUS-12 1.00 [.89, 1.11]** .61 .361

Step 3Gender 6.96 [5.01, 8.92]** .22 .047Age 2 .12 [2 .20, 2 .04]* 2 .09 .008IUS-12 .75 [.63, .88]** .46 .137IBI Magical Beliefs 2 .00 [2 .18, .18] 2 .00 .000IBI Spirituality 2 .00 [2 .12, .11] 2 .00 .000IBI Internal State–Thought Fusion .39 [.122, .655]* .12 .008FMPS CM .42 [.27, .56]** .22 .031

Note. CI, confidence interval.*p , .05; **p , .001.

VOL 43, NO 3, 2014 Magical Thinking 257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

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 notaccount for a significant proportion of uniquevariance in worry. Internal State–ThoughtFusion was the only subscale of the IBI thataccounted for a significant 0.80% uniquevariance in worry, t(494) ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .004.Perfectionism (CM) uniquely accounted for3.10% of the variance in worry, t(494) ¼ 5.66,p , .001. IU was the largest predictor ofworry, t(494) ¼ 11.92, p , .001, accountingfor 13.70% of unique variance as illustrated inTable 5.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that the IBI has goodreliability, discriminant validity and somesupport for construct validity. The role ofmagical thinking in predicting worry, inrelation to IU and perfectionism, found onlyone subscale of the IBI accounted for uniquevariance in worry and was the weakestsignificant predictor.The EFA indicated a three-factor solution

was preferred given its simplified interpret-ation and theoretical support. The factorlabels proposed by Kingdon et al. (2012) weredeemed appropriate for the extracted factorsand thereby retained. Factor 1-Spirituality (10items) denoted a central theme of religiousphilosophy, beliefs in a spiritual presence anddefiance of scientific explanations. Factor 2-Internal State–Thought Fusion (8 items),relates to reflected thoughts predicting events,a cognitive appraisal to intuitive states,superstitious beliefs and fate. Factor 3-Magical Beliefs (6 items) reflected generalbeliefs in magic. Factor loadings in the presentstudy appeared similar (modest to strongoverlap) to item and factor loadings reportedby Kingdon et al. (2012).The exact hierarchical three-factor structure

of the IBI identified by Kingdon et al. (2012)was not confirmed. This hierarchical modelprovided an equal fit as a more parsimoniousthree-factor model. Neither model providedan adequate fit, challenging the conceptualis-ation of the relationship between the IBIconstructs, providing evidence that they maybe correlated factors related to magicalthinking, rather than components driven bya higher-order “magical thinking”. The incon-

sistency in findings suggests that furtherresearch is required regarding the IBI.Consistent with Kingdon et al. (2012), good

reliability of the IBI was also found. Thisstudy was the first to examine test–retestreliability and found the IBI had goodtemporal stability.The present findings did not provide

sufficient evidence of the convergent validityof the IBI on the basis of small correlationsbetween two of the three IBI subscales and thePSWQ. A moderate correlation was foundbetween Internal State–Thought Fusion andthe PSWQ. This finding is consistent withColes et al. (2001) who found a significantrelationship between TAF and worry. Theconvergent validity identified in Kingdon et al.(2012) was anticipated, given the IBI and MISare measures of magical thinking. However,this study was the first to examine theconvergent validity of the IBI with atheoretically related construct (worry). Magi-cal thinking is more closely aligned with OCDthan worry. Thus, to assess convergentvalidity, future research should investigatewhether the IBI relates to measures of OCD,such as the Obsessive-Beliefs Questionnaire(OCCWG, 2001). This study did support thediscriminant validity of the IBI with thesubscales being either not related or weaklyrelated to the BFNE-S, supporting previousevidence of discriminant validity (Kingdonet al., 2012).Not surprisingly, IU was the strongest

predictor of worry (13.70% of variance),while perfectionism accounted for a significantbut small amount (3.10%). Findings areconsistent with Buhr and Dugas (2006) whoalso observed IU to be a larger predictor ofworry than perfectionism. Internal State–Thought Fusion was the only subscale thatcould account for unique variance in worry,though it was less than 1% of the variance. Atenable explanation for the predictive abilityof this subscale is afforded by the conceptuallysimilar construct of TAF being significantlyrelated to worry (Coles et al., 2001). Futureresearch should contrast measures of TAFand magical thinking to further determine therelevant role of each construct inpsychopathology.Findings suggest that magical thinking does

not account for a large degree of worry whileIU was a strong predictor. The results are

258 Shihata, Egan and Rees COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

inconsistent withWest andWillner (2011) whofound magical thinking to be a prominentfeature of both GAD and OCD. However,given their sample was clinical it is difficult tomake direct comparisons, although our find-ings are consistent with Einstein and Menzies(2006) who argued that magical thinking is aprimary feature of OCD but not of otheranxiety disorders.

A limitation was that causation could not bedetermined. Also, despite the large samplesize, participants were obtained using conven-ience sampling and therefore recruitment maybe biased. Moreover, although the presentsample included participants from differentcountries, the majority were from Australia.Thus, sample size restrictions precludedexamination of whether the IBI functionssimilarly across different groups and therebyremains an avenue for further investigation.Further, participants were not screened toensure they represented a “pure” nonclinicalsample, and given the relatively high scores onthe PSWQ, the sample could not be considereda true representative nonclinical sample.Despite this, it may also be considered astrength that the sample was clinically relevantin terms of having a higher level of worry.

Another limitation was that the measureswere developed as traditional offline papermethods. Differences in offline and onlineadministration of a measure may result innon-equivalence with regard to the psycho-metric properties of a measure and scoredistributions (Buchanan et al., 2005). Despitethis, research demonstrates that often onlineand offline methods are equivalent (Buchananet al., 2005).

Moreover, another limitation is thatmeasures of OCD domains (e.g., over import-ance or need to control thoughts) and TAF(e.g., TAF-scale; Shafran, Thordarson, &Rachman, 1996) were not included. Failureto include such measures restricts our under-standing of the relationship between worryand magical thinking and the utility of the IBIas a new measure. Thus, future researchshould include such measures to further assessthe construct validity of the IBI. Further, thisstudy utilised one subscale of perfectionism(CM) to predict worry; thus, future researchmay examine the relevance of other com-ponents of perfectionism in predicting worry.Furthermore, given differences of the IUS-12

subscales (Prospective IU and Inhibitory IU)in predicting worry (Carleton, 2012), futureresearch may further evaluate the relativerelationships and predictive utility of thesedimensions.

Future research should examine the IBI in aclinical OCD sample. This will enable exam-ination of the clinical utility of the IBI and arefined understanding of the role of magicalthinking. The IBI has promising resultsregarding its psychometric properties. Poten-tial clinical implications include the use of theIBI as a screening measure to guide treatmentand identify whether magical thinking mayrepresent a valuable target for intervention.OCD can be improved by directly focusing onmagical thinking in cognitive therapy (Ein-stein, Menzies, St Clare, Drobny, & Helga-dottir, 2011), and it would be useful todetermine the comparative efficacy of treat-ments for magical thinking compared to othercognitive treatments using the IBI as anoutcome measure.

ReferencesBarlow, D.H., Sauer-Zavala, S., Carl, J.R., Bullis,

J.R., & Ellard, K.K. (2012). The nature,diagnosis, and treatment of neuroticism: Backto 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 paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of theprospective memory questionnaire. BehaviorResearch Methods, 37, 148–154. doi:0.3758/BF03206409

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2006). Investigating theconstruct validity of intolerance of uncertaintyand its unique relationship with worry. Journalof Anxiety Disorders, 20, 222–236. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.12.004

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M.J. (2009). The role of fear ofanxiety and intolerance of uncertainty in worry:An experimental manipulation. BehaviourResearch 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 ofuncertainty in worry and generalized anxietydisorder. International Journal of CognitiveTherapy, 5(1), 1–17. doi:10.1521/ijct.2012.5.1.1

Carleton, R.N. (2012). The intolerance of uncer-tainty construct in the context of anxietydisorders: Theoretical and practical perspec-tives. 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

VOL 43, NO 3, 2014 Magical Thinking 259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale:Measuring fear of negative evaluation acrossanxiety and mood disorders. Journal of AnxietyDisorders, 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., & Asmund-son, G.J.G. (2012). Increasingly certain aboutuncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty acrossanxiety and depression. Journal of AnxietyDisorders, 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 shortversion of the Intolerance of UncertaintyScale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21,105–117. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Coles, M.E., Mennin, D.S., & Heimberg, R.G.(2001). Distinguishing obsessive features andworries: 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 practicesin exploratory factor analysis: Four recommen-dations 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 brieffear of negative evaluation scale. Journal ofAnxiety Disorders, 20, 807–817. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2005.11.002

Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L.J. (1983). Magicalideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journalof 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: Aclinical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31,203–212. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009

Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004a). Role ofmagical thinking in obsessive–compulsivesymptoms in an undergraduate sample.Depression and Anxiety, 19, 174–179. doi:10.1002/da.20005

Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2004b). Thepresence of magical thinking in obsessivecompulsive disorder. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 42, 539–549. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00160-8

Einstein, D.A., & Menzies, R.G. (2006). Magicalthinking 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). Thetreatment of magical ideation in obsessive–compulsive disorder. The Cognitive BehaviourTherapist, 4, 16–29. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/

Enns, M.W., & Cox, B.J. (2002). Nature andassessment of perfectionism. In G.L. Flett &P.L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,research and treatment (pp. 33–62). Washing-ton, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fergus, T.A., & Wu, K.D. (2010). Do symptoms ofgeneralized anxiety and obsessive–compulsivedisorder share cognitive processes? CognitiveTherapy 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 perfection-ism, pathological worry and generalised anxietydisorder. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 1–8. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-14-98

Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria forfit 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). Therelationship of meta-worry and intolerance ofuncertainty 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). TheIllusory Beliefs Inventory: A new measure ofmagical thinking and its relationship withobsessive compulsive disorder. Behavioural andCognitive Psychotherapy, 40, 39–53. doi:10.1017/S1352465811000245

Leary, M.R. (1983). A brief version of the fear ofnegative evaluation scale. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375. doi:10.1177/0146167283093007

McEvoy, P.M., & Mahoney, A.E.J. (2013). Intol-erance of uncertainty and negative metacogni-tive beliefs as transdiagnostic mediators ofrepetitive negative thinking in a clinical samplewith anxiety disorders. Journal of AnxietyDisorders, 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 andvalidation of the penn state worry question-naire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28,487–495. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6

Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions WorkingGroup (OCCWG) (2001). Development andinitial validation of the obsessive beliefs ques-tionnaire and the interpretation of intrusionsinventory. 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 fewerquestions: The factor structure and itemproperties of the original and brief fear ofnegative evaluation scale. Psychological Assess-ment, 16, 169–181. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.169

260 Shihata, Egan and Rees COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014

Shafran, R., Thordarson, D.S., & Rachman, S.(1996). Thought–action fusion in obsessivecompulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Dis-orders, 10, 379–391. doi:10.1016/0887-6185(96)00018-7

Starcevic, V., & Berle, D. (2006). Cognitivespecificity of anxiety disorders: A review ofselected key constructs. Depression and Anxiety,23, 51–61. doi:10.1002/da.20145

Stober, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry,procrastination, and perfectionism: Differen-tiating amount of worry, pathological worry,anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 25, 49–60. doi: 10.1023/a:1026474715384

Tolin, D.F., Woods, C.M., & Abramowitz, J.S.(2003). Relationship between obsessive beliefs

and obsessive–compulsive symptoms. CognitiveTherapy 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 psycho-metric evaluation of the brief fear ofnegativeevaluation scale in patients with social anxietydisorder. Psychological Assessment, 17,179–190. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.179

West, B., & Willner, P. (2011). Magical thinking inobsessive–compulsive disorder and generalizedanxiety disorder. Behaviouraland CognitivePsychotherapy, 39, 399–411. doi:10.1017/S1352465810000883

VOL 43, NO 3, 2014 Magical Thinking 261

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 20:

51 0

7 Ju

ly 2

014