Cited by 52Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsMind wandering and attention

The roles of thought suppression and metacognitive beliefs in proneness to auditory verbal hallucinations in a non-clinical sample

Open access
Jones, Simon R., Fernyhough, Charles·2006·Personality and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.003

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Jones, S. R., & Fernyhough, C.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Jones, Simon R.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-12
Volume
41
Issue
8
Pages
1421-1432
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006345300
Cited by
52
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
thought suppression, metacognitive beliefs, auditory verbal hallucinations, White Bear Suppression Inventory, cognitive self-consciousness, cognitive confidence, non-clinical sample

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