Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:40:19.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Appraisals of Anomalous Experience on Distress in People at Risk of Psychosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2012

Hannah E. Taylor ,
Sophie Parker ,
Warren Mansell  and
Anthony P. Morrison
Hannah E. Taylor*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
Sophie Parker
Affiliation:
Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK
Warren Mansell
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
Anthony P. Morrison
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, and Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK
*
Reprint requests to Hannah Taylor, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: A cognitive model of psychosis suggests that appraisals of psychotic-like experiences (PLEs), and the subsequent responses adopted, are responsible for the maintenance of distress and disability associated with psychosis. Aims: This study aimed to investigate whether it is possible to manipulate appraisals of an anomalous experience in people at risk of psychosis and whether this affects levels of distress. Method: Participants who had experienced an “at risk mental state” (ARMS) within the past year, were randomized to one of two groups and received either negative or neutral information pertaining to an anomalous experience (a card trick). Participants completed a questionnaire measuring PLEs, then completed pre and post measures of distress and anxiety in relation to the card trick. Participants were also asked to rate a series of psychotic or non-psychotic appraisals regarding how they thought the card trick worked. Results: Data analysis revealed that distress and anxiety were not related to the information group assigned (our experimental manipulation was unsuccessful). However, when analyzed as one group, higher conviction in non-psychotic appraisals was found to be related to lower levels of distress and state anxiety. Conclusions: The findings provide some validation for a relationship between appraisals and distress. Clinical implications, methodological limitations and possible future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

Psychosisat risk mental statesprodromeappraisalsdistressanomalous experience
Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 24 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bentall, R. P. (2003). Madness Explained: psychosis and human nature. London: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Brett, C. M. C., Johns, L. C., Peters, E. P. and McGuire, P. K. (2009). The role of metacognitive beliefs in determining the impact of anomalous experiences: a comparison of help-seeking and non-help-seeking groups of people experiencing psychotic-like anomalies. Psychological Medicine, 39, 939–950.Google Scholar
Brett, C. M. C., Peters, E. P., Johns, L. C., Tabraham, P., Valmaggia, L. R. and McGuire, P. K. (2007). Appraisals of Anomalous Experiences Interview (AANEX): a multidimensional measure of psychological responses to anomalies associated with psychosis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, s23–s30.Google Scholar
Foa, E. B., Grayson, J. B. and Steketee, G. (1982). Depression, habituation and treatment outcome in obsessive-compulsives. In Boulougouris, J. C. (Ed.), Practical Applications of Learning Theories in Psychiatry (pp.129–141). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Freeman, D., Pugh, K., Antley, A., Slater, M., Bebbington, P., Gittins, M., et al. (2008). Virtual reality study of paranoid thinking in the general population. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, 258–263.Google Scholar
Garety, P. A., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., Freeman, D. and Bebbington, P. E. (2001). A cognitive model of the positive symptoms of psychosis. Psychological Medicine, 31, 189–195.Google Scholar
Linney, Y. M. and Peters, E. R. (2007). The psychological processes underlying symptoms of thought interference in psychosis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 2726–2741.Google Scholar
McGlashan, T. H., Zipursky, R. B., Perkins, D., Addington, J., Miller, T., Woods, S. W., et al. (2006). Randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus placebo in patients prodromally symptomatic for psychosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGorry, P. D., Yung, A. R., Phillips, L. J., Yuen, H. P., Francey, S., Cosgrave, E. M., et al. (2002). Randomized controlled trial of interventions designed to reduce the risk of progression to first-episode psychosis in a clinical sample with subthreshold symptoms. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 921–928.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. P. (2001). The interpretation of intrusions in psychosis: an integrative cognitive approach to hallucinations and delusions. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29, 257–276.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. P. (2005). A normalizing approach to cognitive therapy for intrusive obsessional and psychotic phenomena: the case of Sam. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 12, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, A. P., French, P., Lewis, S. W., Roberts, M., Raja, S., Neil, S. T., et al. (2006). Psychological factors in people at ultra-high risk of psychosis: comparisons with non-patients and associations with symptoms. Psychological Medicine, 36, 1395–1404.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. P., French, P., Walford, L., Lewis, S. W., Kilcommons, A., Green, J., et al. (2004). Cognitive therapy for the prevention of psychosis in people at ultra-high risk: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 291–297.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. P., French, P. and Wells, A. (2007). Metacognitive beliefs across the continuum of psychosis: comparisons between patients with psychotic disorders, patients at ultra-high risk and non-patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 2241–2246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, A. P., Renton, J. C., Dunn, H., Williams, S. and Bentall, R. P. (2004). Cognitive Therapy for Psychosis: a formulation-based approach. London: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
Phillips, L. J., Yung, A. R. and McGorry, P. D. (2000). Identification of young people at risk of psychosis: validation of Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic intake criteria. [10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.00798.x]. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, S164–S169.Google Scholar
Speilberger, C. D., Gorusch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R. and Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Stefanis, N. C., Hanssen, M., Smirnis, N. K., Avramopoulos, D. A., Evdokimidis, I. K., Stefanis, C. N., et al. (2002). Evidence that three dimensions of psychosis have a distribution in the general population. Psychological Medicine, 32, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yung, A., McGorry, P. D., McFarlane, C. A., Jackson, H., Patton, G. C. and Rakkar, A. (1996). Monitoring and care of young people at incipient risk of psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 22, 283–303.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.