Findings indicate that intrapersonal functions of NSSI are most common and are present for the majority of participants. This finding supports dominant emotion-regulation models of NSSI, and the use of interventions that work to improve emotion-regulation ability. However, interpersonal functions remain endorsed by a substantial portion of participants.
Defeat and entrapment are psychological constructs that have played a central role in evolutionary accounts of depression. These concepts have since been implicated in theoretical accounts of anxiety disorders and suicidality. The current article reports on a systematic review of the existing research investigating the links among defeat, entrapment, and psychopathology in the domains of depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other anxiety syndromes. Fifty-one original research articles were identified and critically reviewed. There was strong convergent evidence for a link with depressive symptoms, across a variety of clinical and nonclinical samples. Preliminary support for an association with suicidality was also observed, with effects not readily explainable in terms of comorbid depression. There was strong evidence for an association between defeat and PTSD, although this may have been partly accounted for by comorbid depression. The findings for other anxiety disorders were less consistent. There was, however, evidence that social anxiety in individuals with psychosis may be related to perceptions of entrapment. Overall, there was evidence that perceptions of defeat and entrapment were closely associated with various forms of human psychopathology. These effects were often in the moderate to large range and superseded the impact of other environmental and psychological stressors on psychopathology. We provide a unified theoretical model of how defeat and entrapment may contribute to these different psychopathological conditions. Clinical implications and avenues for future research are discussed.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the magnitude and specificity of the “jumping to conclusions” (JTC) bias in psychosis and delusions. We examined the extent to which people with psychosis, and people with delusions specifically, required less information before making decisions. We examined (1) the average amount of information required to make a decision and (2) numbers who demonstrated an extreme JTC bias, as assessed by the “beads task.” We compared people with psychosis to people with and without nonpsychotic mental health problems, and people with psychosis with and without delusions. We examined whether reduced data-gathering was associated with increased delusion severity. We identified 55 relevant studies, and acquired previously unpublished data from 16 authors. People with psychosis required significantly less information to make decisions than healthy individuals (k = 33, N = 1935, g = −0.53, 95% CI −0.69, −0.36) and those with nonpsychotic mental health problems (k = 13, N = 667, g = −0.58, 95% CI −0.80, −0.35). The odds of extreme responding in psychosis were between 4 and 6 times higher than the odds of extreme responding by healthy participants and participants with nonpsychotic mental health problems. The JTC bias was linked to a greater probability of delusion occurrence in psychosis (k = 14, N = 770, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12, 2.05). There was a trend-level inverse association between data-gathering and delusion severity (k = 18; N = 794; r = −.09, 95% CI −0.21, 0.03). Hence, nonaffective psychosis is characterized by a hasty decision-making style, which is linked to an increased probability of delusions.
CBT-informed treatment is associated with a reduced risk of transition to psychosis at 6, 12 and 18-24 months, and reduced symptoms at 12 months. Methodological limitations and recommendations for trial reporting are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.