We have located links that may give you full text access.
The role of cognitive and metacognitive factors in non-clinical paranoia and negative affect.
Psychology and Psychotherapy 2018 June
OBJECTIVES: It is increasingly accepted that paranoia lies on a continuum of severity that can be observed in the general population. Several psychological factors have been implicated in the development of more distressing persecutory ideas including negative affect (i.e., anxiety and depression), beliefs about oneself and other people (i.e., schemas), and metacognitive beliefs. This study aimed to explore the combined role of cognition and metacognition in paranoia. Specifically, unhelpful metacognitive beliefs and schematic beliefs were tested as potential moderators of the relationship between non-clinical paranoid ideation and negative affect.
METHODS: Measures from 227 people who took part in a cross-sectional online survey were analysed using structural equation modelling. A series of models grounded in cognitive and metacognitive theory were tested sequentially.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that unhelpful metacognitive beliefs had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between paranoia and negative affect. Negative beliefs about oneself and other people did not moderate negative affect but positive beliefs about other people had a negative moderating effect. In a final model, negative schematic beliefs predicted paranoid ideation whilst metacognitive beliefs predicted and moderated affect.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that consideration of metacognitive beliefs, as well as schemas, may be important in understanding non-clinical paranoia.
PRACTITIONER POINTS: Metacognitive beliefs may be an important determinant of negative affect in the context of non-clinical paranoia. The consideration of both cognitive and metacognitive factors may be helpful when working with people with distressing paranoid ideas.
METHODS: Measures from 227 people who took part in a cross-sectional online survey were analysed using structural equation modelling. A series of models grounded in cognitive and metacognitive theory were tested sequentially.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that unhelpful metacognitive beliefs had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between paranoia and negative affect. Negative beliefs about oneself and other people did not moderate negative affect but positive beliefs about other people had a negative moderating effect. In a final model, negative schematic beliefs predicted paranoid ideation whilst metacognitive beliefs predicted and moderated affect.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that consideration of metacognitive beliefs, as well as schemas, may be important in understanding non-clinical paranoia.
PRACTITIONER POINTS: Metacognitive beliefs may be an important determinant of negative affect in the context of non-clinical paranoia. The consideration of both cognitive and metacognitive factors may be helpful when working with people with distressing paranoid ideas.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app