Tania M Lincoln1, Johanna Sundag1, Björn Schlier1, Anne Karow2. 1. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 2. Department for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Psychosis Centre, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, Universitätsklinik Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
Background: Vulnerability-stress models postulate that social stress triggers psychotic episodes in vulnerable individuals. However, experimental evidence for the proposed causal pathway is scarce and the translating mechanisms are insufficiently understood. The study assessed the impact of social exclusion on paranoid beliefs in a quasi-experimental design and investigated the role of emotion regulation (ER) as a vulnerability indicator and emotional responses as a putative translating mechanism. Methods: Participants fulfilling criteria for clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR, n = 25), controls with anxiety disorders (AC, n = 40), and healthy controls (HC, n = 40) were assessed for dysfunctional (eg, rumination, catastrophizing, blaming) and functional ER-strategies (eg, reappraising, accepting, refocusing). They were then exposed to social exclusion during a virtual ball game (Cyberball) and assessed for changes in self-reported emotions and paranoid beliefs. Results: The CHR sample showed a significantly stronger increase in paranoid beliefs from before to after the social exclusion than both control groups. This was accounted for by lower levels of functional and higher levels of dysfunctional ER (compared to HC) and by a stronger increase in self-reported negative emotion in the CHR group (compared to AC and HC). Conclusions: The results confirm the role of negative emotion on the pathway from social stressors to psychotic symptoms and indicate that both the use of dysfunctional ER strategies and difficulties in employing functional strategies add to explaining why people at risk of psychosis respond to a social stressor with increased paranoia.
Background: Vulnerability-stress models postulate that social stress triggers psychotic episodes in vulnerable individuals. However, experimental evidence for the proposed causal pathway is scarce and the translating mechanisms are insufficiently understood. The study assessed the impact of social exclusion on paranoid beliefs in a quasi-experimental design and investigated the role of emotion regulation (ER) as a vulnerability indicator and emotional responses as a putative translating mechanism. Methods:Participants fulfilling criteria for clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR, n = 25), controls with anxiety disorders (AC, n = 40), and healthy controls (HC, n = 40) were assessed for dysfunctional (eg, rumination, catastrophizing, blaming) and functional ER-strategies (eg, reappraising, accepting, refocusing). They were then exposed to social exclusion during a virtual ball game (Cyberball) and assessed for changes in self-reported emotions and paranoid beliefs. Results: The CHR sample showed a significantly stronger increase in paranoid beliefs from before to after the social exclusion than both control groups. This was accounted for by lower levels of functional and higher levels of dysfunctional ER (compared to HC) and by a stronger increase in self-reported negative emotion in the CHR group (compared to AC and HC). Conclusions: The results confirm the role of negative emotion on the pathway from social stressors to psychotic symptoms and indicate that both the use of dysfunctional ER strategies and difficulties in employing functional strategies add to explaining why people at risk of psychosis respond to a social stressor with increased paranoia.
Authors: Annika Clamor; Björn Schlier; Ulf Köther; Maike M Hartmann; Steffen Moritz; Tania M Lincoln Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Lynn M Oswald; Gary S Wand; Hiroto Kuwabara; Dean F Wong; Shijun Zhu; James R Brasic Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Martin Gevonden; Jan Booij; Wim van den Brink; Dennis Heijtel; Jim van Os; Jean-Paul Selten Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: F Schultze-Lutter; C Michel; S J Schmidt; B G Schimmelmann; N P Maric; R K R Salokangas; A Riecher-Rössler; M van der Gaag; M Nordentoft; A Raballo; A Meneghelli; M Marshall; A Morrison; S Ruhrmann; J Klosterkötter Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 5.361
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: Victoria B Gradin; Gordon Waiter; Poornima Kumar; Catriona Stickle; Maarten Milders; Keith Matthews; Ian Reid; Jeremy Hall; J Douglas Steele Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Charlie A Davidson; Cynthia J Willner; Stefon J R van Noordt; Barbara C Banz; Jia Wu; Joshua G Kenney; Jason K Johannesen; Michael J Crowley Journal: J Psychopathol Behav Assess Date: 2019-02-11
Authors: Zachary B Millman; Caroline Roemer; Teresa Vargas; Jason Schiffman; Vijay A Mittal; James M Gold Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 7.348
Authors: Michal Hajdúk; Daniel Dančík; Jakub Januška; Viktor Svetský; Alexandra Straková; Michal Turček; Barbora Vašečková; Ľubica Forgáčová; Anton Heretik; Ján Pečeňák Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Zachary Anderson; Tina Gupta; William Revelle; Claudia M Haase; Vijay A Mittal Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 4.157