Relationship between attachment style and symptom severity across the psychosis spectrum: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
There is growing evidence for the role of attachment in psychosis, however, to date there has been no quantitative review of the prevalence of insecure attachment in psychosis. The current study sought to systematically appraise studies investigating the prevalence of insecure attachment and the association with psychosis-spectrum experiences using meta-analytic techniques. A systematic search of studies carried out between January 1980 and 30th November 2015 found 25 papers eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of insecure attachment style was significantly higher in individuals with psychosis (76%) than in non-clinical samples (38%), with fearful attachment being the most prevalent. Across the continuum, there was a small but significant relationship between positive symptom severity and insecure attachment and a significant relationship between negative symptom severity and insecure attachment in the non-clinical analysis. This relationship was not found in the clinical group. The prevalence of insecure attachment appears to be high in psychosis, however, the relationship between symptom severity and attachment is small. Attachment theory may provide greater understanding of the development of positive symptoms than previously thought, however, research needs to include more at-risk samples and longitudinal research to fully understand the dynamics of this relationship.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Paranoia is associated with insecure attachment.
“many studies have reported a strong association between insecure attachment styles and paranoia in both clinical and non‐clinical samples (Carr, Hardy, & Fornells‐Ambrojo, 2018; Gumley, Taylor, Schwannauer, & MacBeth, 2014; Pickering, Simpson, & Bentall, 2008;”
From Mistrust and negative self‐esteem: Two paths from attachment styles to paranoia. (2021) · cites this paper as Carr, Hardy, & Fornells‐Ambrojo, 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 125 · Cited by 99
- Authors
- Carr, S. C., Hardy, A., & Fornells-Ambrojo, M.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Carr, Sarah Christina
- Venue
- Clinical Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 59
- Pages
- 145-158
- ISSN
- 0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2772225232
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 125
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- kclpure.kcl.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
- Keywords
- attachment styles, insecure attachment, psychosis spectrum, fearful attachment, symptom severity, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, attachment theory, non-clinical sample
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Object Attachment, Psychotic Disorders, Severity of Illness Index
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