4.4 Article

A comparison, of metacognitions in patients with hallucinations, delusions, panic disorder, and non-patient controls

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 251-256

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00095-5

Keywords

metacognition; auditory hallucinations; voices; cognitive

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study tested the hypothesis that metacognitions are a general vulnerability factor for psychological disorder. It was predicted that patients with psychosis (hallucinations or delusions), and patients with panic disorder would score higher than non-patients on measures of metacognition. Moreover, it was hypothesised that patients showing most dysregulation of thinking (voice-hearers) would endorse significantly higher metacognition scores than individuals in the other groups. The Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire (MCQ: Cartwright-Hatton & Wells, Journal of Anxiety Disorders 11 (1997) 279) was administered to patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with auditory hallucinations, patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with persecutory delusions, patients who met DSM-IV criteria for panic disorder and non-patients. The results showed that psychotic patients who experience auditory hallucinations tended to exhibit higher levels of dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs than other patient groups, scoring significantly higher than at least two of the three control groups on positive beliefs about worry, negative beliefs about uncontrollability and danger, cognitive confidence and negative beliefs including superstition, punishment and responsibility. It was also found that the metacognitive beliefs of patients with persecutory delusions and panic patients' were often similar to each other, and elevated in comparison to non-patients, suggesting that such beliefs are generic vulnerability factors. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All fights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available