K Daalman1, I E C Sommer, E M Derks, E R Peters. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Neuroscience Division, University Medical Center Utrecht and Rudolf Magnus Institute for Neuroscience, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several cognitive biases are related to psychotic symptoms, including auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH). It remains unclear whether these biases differ in voice-hearers with and without a 'need-for-care'. METHOD: A total of 72 healthy controls, 72 healthy voice-hearers and 72 clinical voice-hearers were compared on the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis (CBQp), which assesses 'intentionalizing', 'jumping to conclusions', 'catastrophizing', 'dichotomous thinking' and 'emotional reasoning' in vignettes characterized by two themes, 'threatening events' and 'anomalous perceptions'. RESULTS: Healthy voice-hearers scored intermediately on total CBQp between the control and clinical groups, differing significantly from both. However, on four out of five biases the scores of the healthy voice-hearers were comparable with those of the healthy controls. The only exception was 'emotional reasoning', on which their scores were comparable with the clinical group. Healthy voice-hearers demonstrated fewer biases than the psychotic patients on the 'threatening events', but not the 'anomalous perceptions', vignettes. CBQp scores were related to both cognitive and emotional, but not physical, characteristics of voices. CONCLUSIONS: Most cognitive biases prevalent in clinical voice-hearers, particularly with threatening events themes, are absent in healthy voice-hearers, apart from emotional reasoning which may be specifically related to the vulnerability to develop AVH. The association between biases and both beliefs about voices and distress/emotional valence is consistent with the close links between emotions and psychotic phenomena identified by cognitive models of psychosis. The absence of reasoning biases might prevent the formation of threatening appraisals about anomalous experiences, thereby reducing the likelihood of distress and 'need for care'.
BACKGROUND: Several cognitive biases are related to psychotic symptoms, including auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH). It remains unclear whether these biases differ in voice-hearers with and without a 'need-for-care'. METHOD: A total of 72 healthy controls, 72 healthy voice-hearers and 72 clinical voice-hearers were compared on the Cognitive Biases Questionnaire for psychosis (CBQp), which assesses 'intentionalizing', 'jumping to conclusions', 'catastrophizing', 'dichotomous thinking' and 'emotional reasoning' in vignettes characterized by two themes, 'threatening events' and 'anomalous perceptions'. RESULTS: Healthy voice-hearers scored intermediately on total CBQp between the control and clinical groups, differing significantly from both. However, on four out of five biases the scores of the healthy voice-hearers were comparable with those of the healthy controls. The only exception was 'emotional reasoning', on which their scores were comparable with the clinical group. Healthy voice-hearers demonstrated fewer biases than the psychoticpatients on the 'threatening events', but not the 'anomalous perceptions', vignettes. CBQp scores were related to both cognitive and emotional, but not physical, characteristics of voices. CONCLUSIONS: Most cognitive biases prevalent in clinical voice-hearers, particularly with threatening events themes, are absent in healthy voice-hearers, apart from emotional reasoning which may be specifically related to the vulnerability to develop AVH. The association between biases and both beliefs about voices and distress/emotional valence is consistent with the close links between emotions and psychotic phenomena identified by cognitive models of psychosis. The absence of reasoning biases might prevent the formation of threatening appraisals about anomalous experiences, thereby reducing the likelihood of distress and 'need for care'.
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: 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: Todd S Woodward; Kwanghee Jung; Heungsun Hwang; John Yin; Laura Taylor; Mahesh Menon; Emmanuelle Peters; Elizabeth Kuipers; Flavie Waters; Tania Lecomte; Iris E Sommer; Kirstin Daalman; Remko van Lutterveld; Daniela Hubl; Jochen Kindler; Philipp Homan; Johanna C Badcock; Saruchi Chhabra; Matteo Cella; Sarah Keedy; Paul Allen; Andrea Mechelli; Antonio Preti; Sara Siddi; David Erickson Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Renaud Jardri; Agna A Bartels-Velthuis; Martin Debbané; Jack A Jenner; Ian Kelleher; Yves Dauvilliers; Giuseppe Plazzi; Morgane Demeulemeester; Christopher N David; Judith Rapoport; Dries Dobbelaere; Sandra Escher; Charles Fernyhough Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Catalina Mourgues; Alyson M Negreira; Brittany Quagan; Nur Evin Mercan; Halsey Niles; Eren Kafadar; Claire Bien; Faria Kamal; Albert R Powers Journal: Schizophr Bull Open Date: 2020-09-25