CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryHallucinations in medical conditions

A qualitative comparison of psychotic‐like phenomena in clinical and non‐clinical populations

Heriot‐Maitland, Charles, Knight, Matthew, Peters, Emmanuelle·2012·British Journal of Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02011.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives. To explore the nature and context of psychotic‐like phenomena in clinical (C) and non‐clinical (NC) participants, and to investigate whether the factors involved with triggering a psychotic‐like ‘out‐of‐the‐ordinary’ experience (OOE) can be distinguished from those determining its clinical consequences. Design and methods. Qualitative data were collected by semi‐structured interviews, and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Twelve participants, who reported OOEs starting in the last 5 years, were split into C and NC groups depending on whether they were involved with mental‐health services as a result of their experiences. Inter‐group comparisons of emergent themes were made. Results. Inter‐group similarities were found in the triggers and subjective nature of experiences, with clearer group differences in the inter‐personal and background personal contexts, and how the experiences were incorporated into their lives. In particular, the inter‐personal theme of validation was identified as important in distinguishing the clinical consequences of OOEs. Conclusions. It is not the OOE itself that determines the development of a clinical condition, but rather the wider personal and interpersonal contexts that influence how this experience is subsequently integrated. Theoretical implications for the refinement of psychosis models are outlined, and clinical implications for the validation and normalization of psychotic‐like phenomena are proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02011.x

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Research points to the importance of the interpersonal context when integrating out of ordinary experiences into one's life.

    “Research points to the importance of the interpersonal context - awareness of the other's views as pathologising or normalising - when integrating out of ordinary experiences into one's life, including the opinions of significant others and professionals that people seek help from (Heriot-Maitland et al., 2012; Sedláková & Řiháček, 2016).”

    From Psychosis or spiritual emergency? A Foucauldian discourse analysis of case reports of extreme mental states in the context of meditation (2019) · cites this paper as Heriot-Maitland et al., 2012

  • Voice-hearing in religious contexts may become more culturally appropriate over time.

    “and voice-hearing in religious contexts may become more culturally appropriate over time [70].”

    From The “common” experience of voice-hearing and its relationship with shame and guilt: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [70]

  • Having a context for unusual experiences and/or beliefs makes a difference in terms of whether they lead to diagnosable mental health difficulties or become integrated into one's life without causing functional disruption.

    “The higher scores on ‘magical thinking’ in the face of low scores on other schizotypy dimensions are in line with research showing that having a context for unusual experiences and/or beliefs makes a difference in terms of whether they lead to diagnosable mental health difficulties or whether they become integrated into one's life without causing a functional disruption (Brett et al., 2014, Heriot”

    From Schizotypy and mindfulness: Magical thinking without suspiciousness characterizes mindfulness meditators (2016) · cites this paper as Heriot-Maitland et al., 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heriot‐Maitland, C., Knight, M., & Peters, E.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-15
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
37-53
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
DOI
10.1111/j.2044-8260.2011.02011.x
OpenAlex
W1517759153
Cited by
73
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
Keywords
validation, interpersonal context, psychosis model, mental health service utilization
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Emotions, England, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interview, Psychological, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Social Isolation, Stress, Psychological, Spirituality, Young Adult

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