Cited by 26Schizophrenia research and treatmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health and Psychiatry

Interpretation Biases in Clinical Paranoia

Open access
Savulich, George, Shergill, Sukhwinder S., Yiend, Jenny·2017·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Interpretation biases matching the concerns of a psychopathology have been implicated in the etiology of psychological disorders, but little research has investigated their presence in psychosis. Here we investigated negative, and specifically paranoia-relevant, interpretation biases in patients with schizophrenia, with ( n = 32) and without ( n = 29) paranoid symptoms and matched healthy controls ( n = 29). Results revealed negatively biased interpretations of emotional ambiguity in both patient groups compared to controls—paranoid patients showing the stronger biases on material permitting paranoid interpretations than on other types of ambiguous material—but mixed evidence that this content-specific effect applied uniquely to the paranoid patient group. These data support models of psychopathology, including psychosis, which implicate cognitive biases in the formation and maintenance of core symptoms. We conclude that biased interpretation specifically related to paranoia deserves further detailed empirical investigation as a possible causal and maintaining factor for psychosis symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2167702617718180

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 26

Authors
Savulich, G., Shergill, S. S., & Yiend, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Savulich, George
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2017-08-11
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
985-1000
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W2730126372
Cited by
26
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
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
interpretation bias, paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, emotional ambiguity, cognitive biases, paranoid symptoms, symptom maintenance, etiology of psychosis

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