Interpretation Biases in Clinical Paranoia
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- Update notices
- correction (2019-06-17)
- Open access
- green
- kclpure.kcl.ac.uk
- 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