A Randomised Comparison of Values and Goals, Versus Goals Only and Control, for High Nonclinical Paranoia

Abstract

Abstract Background Paranoia is common in the general population. Focusing on values and enhancing value-based acts may attenuate it. This study compared three brief (30-min, self-directed) online conditions: focusing on values and value-based goal setting (n = 30), goal setting only (n = 32) and non-values/goals control (n = 32) in a high paranoia sample. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to condition. State paranoia (primary outcome) and positive and negative self-views following a difficult interpersonal experience (secondary outcome) were assessed at baseline and two-weeks. Results Intention-to-treat: state paranoia was significantly lower following the values condition as compared to non-values/goals control (ηp2 = .148) and goals only (ηp2 = .072). Only the former comparison was significant. Per-protocol: groups did not significantly differ (p = .077). Within-group effect sizes: values and value-based goal setting (intention-to-treat d = .82, per-protocol d = .78), goals only (intention-to-treat d = .41, per-protocol d = .42) non-values/goals control (intention-to-treat d = .25, per-protocol d = .24). Positive self-views increased in all conditions. The increase was largest for the values condition, but not significantly so. Limitations Reliance on self-report, brief follow-up, predominantly White female sample. Conclusions The values condition was most effective at reducing non-clinical paranoia. The values condition appeared to increase positive self-views more so than comparison groups, but the sample was small and the difference was non-significant.