Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background: Current psychological models of psychotic symptoms suggest that metacognitive beliefs impact on an individual's appraisal of anomalous experiences, and thereby influence whether these lead to distress and become clinical symptoms. This study examined the relationship between maladaptive metacognitive beliefs, anomalous experiences, anomaly-related distress, anxiety and depression and diagnostic status. Method: The Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ), Symptom Checklist 90 - Revised, and Appraisals of Anomalous Experiences interview were administered to 27 people diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, 32 people meeting At Risk Mental State (ARMS) criteria, 24 people with psychotic-like experiences but no need for care, and 32 healthy volunteers. Results: The two clinical groups scored higher than non-patient controls and individuals experiencing psychotic-like anomalies with no need for care on most subscales of the MCQ, particularly the 'general negative beliefs about thoughts' (NEG) subscale. However, most group differences became non-significant when anxiety and depression were controlled for. Few relationships were found between the MCQ subscales and psychotic-like anomalies and anomaly-related distress. Cognitive/attentional difficulty was the only type of anomaly to be significantly associated with maladaptive metacognitive beliefs. Anomaly-related distress was associated with only the NEG subscale of the MCQ. Conclusions: Maladaptive metacognitive beliefs, as measured by the MCQ, appear to be related more to elevated levels of general psychopathology in psychotic and at-risk groups than to the presence of, and distress associated with, psychotic experiences. Processes by which metacognitions may impact upon the need for care are discussed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008.

Original publication

DOI

10.1017/S0033291708004650

Type

Journal article

Journal

Psychological Medicine

Publication Date

01/06/2009

Volume

39

Pages

939 - 950