Edo S Jaya1, Leonie Ascone1, Tania M Lincoln1. 1. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
Background: Social adversity is a risk factor for psychosis, but the translating mechanisms are not well understood. This study tests whether the relationship between social adversity and psychosis is mediated by cognitive vulnerability in the form of low perceived social rank, negative schemas related to self and other, and loneliness and whether the putative mediations are specific to psychosis or are largely explained by depression. Methods: The study was a survey in a community sample (N = 2350) from Germany (n = 786), Indonesia (n = 844), and the United States (n = 720). Mediation path analysis with structural equation modeling was used to test for the specificity of the hypothesized paths to psychosis controlling for depression. Results: Social adversity had a significant medium to large effect on positive (R2 = .20) and negative symptoms (R2 = .38). Social rank, negative schemas, and loneliness significantly mediated the relationship between social adversity and negative symptoms and the models explained a large amount of the variance (R2 = .43-.44). For positive symptoms, only negative schemas were a significant mediator (R2 = .27). Discussion: The results emphasize the role of social adversity in psychosis and support the assumption that cognitive vulnerability is a relevant translating mechanism as postulated by the social defeat hypothesis and cognitive models of psychosis. This underlines the relevance of the clinical practice of targeting beliefs in cognitive interventions for psychosis. It also indicates that targeting cognitive vulnerability in people experiencing social adversity could be a promising approach to prevention.
Background: Social adversity is a risk factor for psychosis, but the translating mechanisms are not well understood. This study tests whether the relationship between social adversity and psychosis is mediated by cognitive vulnerability in the form of low perceived social rank, negative schemas related to self and other, and loneliness and whether the putative mediations are specific to psychosis or are largely explained by depression. Methods: The study was a survey in a community sample (N = 2350) from Germany (n = 786), Indonesia (n = 844), and the United States (n = 720). Mediation path analysis with structural equation modeling was used to test for the specificity of the hypothesized paths to psychosis controlling for depression. Results: Social adversity had a significant medium to large effect on positive (R2 = .20) and negative symptoms (R2 = .38). Social rank, negative schemas, and loneliness significantly mediated the relationship between social adversity and negative symptoms and the models explained a large amount of the variance (R2 = .43-.44). For positive symptoms, only negative schemas were a significant mediator (R2 = .27). Discussion: The results emphasize the role of social adversity in psychosis and support the assumption that cognitive vulnerability is a relevant translating mechanism as postulated by the social defeat hypothesis and cognitive models of psychosis. This underlines the relevance of the clinical practice of targeting beliefs in cognitive interventions for psychosis. It also indicates that targeting cognitive vulnerability in people experiencing social adversity could be a promising approach to prevention.
Authors: Martine van Nierop; Tineke Lataster; Feikje Smeets; Nicole Gunther; Catherine van Zelst; Ron de Graaf; Margreet ten Have; Saskia van Dorsselaer; Maarten Bak; Inez Myin-Germeys; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Jim van Os; Ruud van Winkel Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: M J Gevonden; J P Selten; I Myin-Germeys; R de Graaf; M ten Have; S van Dorsselaer; J van Os; W Veling Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: J Boydell; P Bebbington; V Bhavsar; E Kravariti; J van Os; R M Murray; R Dutta Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Stanley Zammit; Daphne Kounali; Mary Cannon; Anthony S David; David Gunnell; Jon Heron; Peter B Jones; Shôn Lewis; Sarah Sullivan; Dieter Wolke; Glyn Lewis Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Michelle H Lim; John F M Gleeson; Mario Alvarez-Jimenez; David L Penn Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Tania M Lincoln; Björn Schlier; Felix Strakeljahn; Brandon A Gaudiano; Suzanne H So; Jessica Kingston; Eric M J Morris; Lyn Ellett Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Samantha V Abram; Lauren P Weittenhiller; Claire E Bertrand; John R McQuaid; Daniel H Mathalon; Judith M Ford; Susanna L Fryer Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.558