Cited by 53Schizophrenia research and treatmentSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Experimentally induced social threat increases paranoid thinking

Open access
Saalfeld, Vanessa, Ramadan, Zeina, Bell, Vaughan, Raihani, Nichola J.·2018·Royal Society Open Science

Abstract

The ability to attribute intentions to others is a hallmark of human social cognition but is altered in paranoia. Paranoia is the most common positive symptom of psychosis but is also present to varying degrees in the general population. Epidemiological models suggest that psychosis risk is associated with low social rank and minority status, but the causal effects of status and group affiliation on paranoid thinking remain unclear. We examined whether relative social status and perceived group affiliation, respectively, affect live paranoid thinking using two large- N ( N = 2030), pre-registered experiments. Interacting with someone from a higher social rank or a political out-group led to an increase in paranoid attributions of harmful intent for ambiguous actions. Pre-existing paranoia predicted a general increase in harmful intent attribution, but there was no interaction with either type of social threat: highly paranoid people showed the same magnitude of increase as non-paranoid people, although from a higher baseline. We conclude social threat in the form of low social status and out-group status affects paranoid attributions, but ongoing paranoia represents a lowered threshold for detecting social threat rather than an impaired reactivity to it.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsos.180569

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Virtual interaction with strangers supposedly of higher social status and holding opposite political views provoked paranoid tendencies in healthy participants to attribute aggressive intentions to others.

    “Виртуальное взаимодействие с незнакомцами, якобы имеющими более высокий социальный статус и придерживающимися противоположных политических взглядов (экспериментальная модель ситуации социальной угрозы), провоцировало у здоровых участников параноидные тенденции предписывать другим людям агрессивные намерения (Saalfeld et al., 2018).”

    From Когнитивные механизмы дисфункционального принятия решений при психических расстройствах (2025) · cites this paper as Saalfeld et al., 2018

    The Results (Harmful intent attribution) and Discussion report stronger attributions of harmful intent toward higher-status and political out-group partners in separate Dictator Game tasks. The Methods (Procedure) say participants were told a partner had a different political affiliation, not necessarily opposite political views; the copy also does not establish that participants were screened as healthy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Kassambara A 2018 ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots. R package version 0.1. 7 [Internet]. See https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr. 29797258

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saalfeld, V., Ramadan, Z., Bell, V., & Raihani, N. J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Raihani, Nichola J.
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Published
2018-08
Volume
5
Issue
8
Pages
180569
ISSN
2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2785061076
Cited by
52
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
FWCI
5.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Royal Society Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (Seed Award to VB)
  • Royal Society (URF to NR)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
paranoia, paranoid thinking, social danger, social status, group membership, outgroup, intention attribution, psychosis, social cognition, minority status

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