Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:52:02.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Social causality understanding in relation to irrational attitudes and ambiguity intolerance in schizophrenia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

E. Sokolova
Affiliation:
Faculty Of Psychology, Lomonosov MSU, Moscow, Russian Federation
K. Andreyuk
Affiliation:
Faculty Of Psychology, Lomonosov MSU, Moscow, Russian Federation
A. Ryzhov*
Affiliation:
Faculty Of Psychology, Lomonosov MSU, Moscow, Russian Federation
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

The uncertainty of contemporary social contexts fosters suspiciousness and anaclitic anxieties. In the context of interpersonal relationships this manifests in cognitive distortions and magical thinking, specially in the vulnerable populations.

Objectives

To study the ability of understanding social causality and its relation to magical thinking and ambiguity intolerance in schizophrenia and controls.

Methods

Participants were 40 inpatients with paranoid schizophrenia and 40 controls. Understanding of social causality was measured by corresponding SCORS-S scale for Thematic Apperception Test, Magical thinking was measured by SPQ-74 and intolerance to ambiguity by the New Tolerance-Intolerance to ambiguity questionnaires.

Results

The understanding of social causality was less developed in schizophrenia group (mean values 2.28 and 3.28, p<.001). They manifest omissions of psychological aspects, logical faults and inconsistencies in depicting social relationships. Magical thinking was higher in clinical group (4.32 and 2.33, p<0.001). Two measures were significantly (p<0.05) correlated in both groups. Regression analysis indicates that 37.7% of variance of dependent variable ‘understanding of social causality’ (R2=0,377) was predicted by ‘magical thinking’ (-0,398, p<0,001) and ‘tolerance to ambiguity’ (0,412, p<0,001). The overal level of tolerance of ambiguity was higher in control group (52.2 and 61.0, p<0.002).

Conclusions

Tolerance of ambiguity, being more characteristic for normal population, underlies the understanding of social causality. In contrast, the intolerance to interpersonal ambiguity is related to increment of anxiety, failures in cognitive elaboration of interpersonal relationships and leads to superstition and illogical beliefs. This relationship has a heuristic value for understanding what is happening to vulnerable individuals in the context of current COVID pandemic.

Type
Abstract
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.