The role of metacognitive beliefs in determining the impact of anomalous experiences: a comparison of help-seeking and non-help-seeking groups of people experiencing psychotic-like anomalies

Author:

Brett C. M. C.,Johns L. C.,Peters E. P.,McGuire P. K.

Abstract

BackgroundCurrent psychological models of psychotic symptoms suggest that metacognitive beliefs impact on an individual's appraisal of anomalous experiences, and thereby influence whether these lead to distress and become clinical symptoms. This study examined the relationship between maladaptive metacognitive beliefs, anomalous experiences, anomaly-related distress, anxiety and depression and diagnostic status.MethodThe Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ), Symptom Checklist 90 – Revised, and Appraisals of Anomalous Experiences interview were administered to 27 people diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, 32 people meeting At Risk Mental State (ARMS) criteria, 24 people with psychotic-like experiences but no need for care, and 32 healthy volunteers.ResultsThe two clinical groups scored higher than non-patient controls and individuals experiencing psychotic-like anomalies with no need for care on most subscales of the MCQ, particularly the ‘general negative beliefs about thoughts’ (NEG) subscale. However, most group differences became non-significant when anxiety and depression were controlled for. Few relationships were found between the MCQ subscales and psychotic-like anomalies and anomaly-related distress. Cognitive/attentional difficulty was the only type of anomaly to be significantly associated with maladaptive metacognitive beliefs. Anomaly-related distress was associated with only the NEG subscale of the MCQ.ConclusionsMaladaptive metacognitive beliefs, as measured by the MCQ, appear to be related more to elevated levels of general psychopathology in psychotic and at-risk groups than to the presence of, and distress associated with, psychotic experiences. Processes by which metacognitions may impact upon the need for care are discussed.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Applied Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3