Cited by 32Schizophrenia research and treatmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health and Psychiatry

Are experiences of psychosis associated with unhelpful metacognitive coping strategies? A systematic review of the evidence

Sellers, Rachel, Wells, Adrian, Morrison, Anthony P.·2018·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

This review investigated whether unhelpful metacognitive coping strategies, such as attentional biases, worry, rumination, and thought control, are associated with experiences of psychosis. These processes, known collectively as the Cognitive Attentional Syndrome (CAS), form a central tenet of the Self‐Regulatory Executive Function model. Three research questions based on assumptions underlying the CAS were addressed. It was predicted that processes of (a) self‐focused processing, (b) negative perseverative thinking (worry and rumination), and (c) counterproductive thought control would be associated with experiences of psychosis. A comprehensive search of the literature identified 51 eligible studies: 17 investigated self‐focused attention, 25 investigated perseverative processing (worry: n = 18; rumination: n = 10), and 9 investigated thought control strategies. Findings indicated that unhelpful metacognitive coping strategies associated with the CAS are related to experiences of psychosis and appear to share important relationships with distress. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.2132

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sellers, R., Wells, A., & Morrison, A. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences University of Manchester Manchester UK
Corresponding author
Sellers, Rachel
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-08-23
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
31-49
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W2750324265
Cited by
32
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
psychosis, cognitive attentional syndrome, Self-Regulatory Executive Function model, attentional bias, worry, rumination, thought control, perseverative thinking, self-focus
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Attentional Bias, Rumination, Cognitive, Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Psychotic Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review