Personality

42 Dutch patients were clinically assessed using a standard psychiatric interview by five psychiatrists experienced in obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. The general medical history as well as the psychiatric history was collected for all patients. Personality pathology was evaluated using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) [6] . The following questionnaires were completed:
The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) [7] (link), a 17-item scale determining a patient’s level of depression.
The 14-item Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) [8] (link), which measures the severity of anxiety symptoms.
The Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) [9] (link), which is a widely used screening instrument for mental and physical dysfunctioning. The 90 items comprise eight subscales: Agoraphobia, Anxiety, Depression, Somatic complaints, Insufficiency in thinking and acting, Suspicion and interpersonal sensitivity, Hostility and Sleep problems. The total score is seen as a general index for psychoneuroticism.
To measure the severity of the misophonia symptoms, we developed an adapted version of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) [10] (link), [11] (link), which we have named the Amsterdam Misophonia Scale (A-MISO-S). Similar adaptations of the Y-BOCS have appeared to be reliable and valid measures of symptom severity in other obsessive-compulsive and impulse control disorders, such as pathological gambling (PG-YBOCS) [12] and body dysmorphic disorder (BDD-YBOCS) [13] .
On a 6-item scale (range 0–24) patients were asked about the (1) time they spent on misophonia; (2) interference with social functioning; (3) level of anger; (4) resistance against the impulse; (5) control they had over their thoughts and anger; and (6) time they spent avoiding misophonic situations. Scores from 0–4 are considered subclinical misophonic symptoms, 5–9 mild, 10–14 moderate, 15–19 severe, 20–24 extreme.
To rule out any potential hearing problems we randomly selected five patients to perform a standard hearing test, including pure tone, speech audiometry and loudness discomfort levels, which are commonly performed to objectify hearing loss or distortion [14] , [15] . One patient’s test showed unexplained conductive hearing loss. In the other four patients no significant audiological distortion was found and further testing was therefore omitted.
The medical ethics testing committee of the Academic Medical Center did not require approval because this study was anecdotal and observational. All patients gave written informed consent for publication.

Our analysis consists of two parts. The primary analysis concerns the role different individual factors play in the consent process for women towards BA procedure. In particular, using the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, we examine how individual characteristics such as age, height, weight, breast size, relationship status, offspring, education level, annual income, self-rated happiness, self-rated health, Big 5 personality traits, and socio-sexuality inventory correlate with participants’ 1) risk preferences for cosmetic augmentation, 2) willingness to recommend the procedure, and 3) understanding of the likelihood of future surgery, measured prior to treatment exposure (i.e., video monologues of the BA procedure risk information). This analysis helps establishing the baseline of the roles of different individual factors play in the BA consent process for women.
For the second part of the analysis, we investigate the effect of “risk/informed consent” information (presented in the form of first consultation using the video monologue) on women's risk attitude towards a BA procedure based on our experimental design. To do this, we first utilise the paired t-test to compare the two set of participants' responses to the three questions relating to the comprehension, risk preference, and perceptions of BA procedure, recorded before and after viewing the video monologue with the risk information. Overall (i.e., pooling four treatments) and treatment specific (i.e., receiving information on short-run risk versus long-run risk and between male and female surgeon presenters) results are presented. For example, comparing the changes in response between the “short” and “long” groups allows us to identify whether the exposure to differing levels of risk information affect risk assessment differently. Lastly, we again apply OLS regression analysis to examine whether the individual factors (i.e., age, education level, income, relationship status, offspring) correlate with participants' risk attitudes towards BA procedure after receiving the risk information.