AIM: This study investigated the interaction between appraisals and safety behaviours in the maintenance of psychotic symptoms. METHOD: The study recruited a population who had persistent psychotic experiences but who had no 'need-for-care' (Persistence group; n = 39) as well as a population who had a diagnosed psychotic disorder and were receiving current treatment (Impairment group; n = 28). The participants were assessed on semi-structured interviews of appraisals and safety behaviours and on anxiety and depression questionnaires. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in total or first rank psychotic experiences, but the Persistence group showed less anomaly-related distress, depression and anxiety than the Impairment group. As predicted, the Impairment group displayed more threat appraisals and safety behaviours than the Persistence group, with a greater frequency of safety behaviours being related to higher levels of threat appraisals and anomaly-related distress. Threat appraisals mediated the relationship between safety behaviours and anomaly-related distress, suggesting that threat appraisals may maintain distress, a defining feature of Impairment status. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide support for the cognitive model of psychosis in suggesting that cognitive and behavioural factors are key in differentiating non-clinical anomalous experiences from clinical psychotic status. These data suggest that therapy should target threat appraisals and safety-seeking behaviours in order to decrease distress.
AIM: This study investigated the interaction between appraisals and safety behaviours in the maintenance of psychotic symptoms. METHOD: The study recruited a population who had persistent psychotic experiences but who had no 'need-for-care' (Persistence group; n = 39) as well as a population who had a diagnosed psychotic disorder and were receiving current treatment (Impairment group; n = 28). The participants were assessed on semi-structured interviews of appraisals and safety behaviours and on anxiety and depression questionnaires. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in total or first rank psychotic experiences, but the Persistence group showed less anomaly-related distress, depression and anxiety than the Impairment group. As predicted, the Impairment group displayed more threat appraisals and safety behaviours than the Persistence group, with a greater frequency of safety behaviours being related to higher levels of threat appraisals and anomaly-related distress. Threat appraisals mediated the relationship between safety behaviours and anomaly-related distress, suggesting that threat appraisals may maintain distress, a defining feature of Impairment status. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide support for the cognitive model of psychosis in suggesting that cognitive and behavioural factors are key in differentiating non-clinical anomalous experiences from clinical psychotic status. These data suggest that therapy should target threat appraisals and safety-seeking behaviours in order to decrease distress.
Authors: Thomas A Ward; Keith J Gaynor; Mike D Hunter; Peter W R Woodruff; Philippa A Garety; Emmanuelle R Peters Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Pamela Jacobsen; Emmanuelle Peters; Thomas Ward; Philippa A Garety; Mike Jackson; Paul Chadwick Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Emmanuelle Peters; Thomas Ward; Mike Jackson; Peter Woodruff; Craig Morgan; Philip McGuire; Philippa A Garety Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Emmanuelle Peters; Thomas Ward; Mike Jackson; Craig Morgan; Monica Charalambides; Philip McGuire; Peter Woodruff; Pamela Jacobsen; Paul Chadwick; Philippa A Garety Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Louise C Johns; Kristiina Kompus; Melissa Connell; Clara Humpston; Tania M Lincoln; Eleanor Longden; Antonio Preti; Ben Alderson-Day; Johanna C Badcock; Matteo Cella; Charles Fernyhough; Simon McCarthy-Jones; Emmanuelle Peters; Andrea Raballo; James Scott; Sara Siddi; Iris E Sommer; Frank Larøi Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Krista M Wisner; Melissa K Johnson; James N Porter; Robert F Krueger; Angus W MacDonald Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 5.038