The relationship between risk perception, anxiety and paranoia – A predictive model in a community sample

Suzanne H. So , Anson Kai Chun Chau , Brandon A. Gaudiano , Lyn Ellett , Tania M. Lincoln , Eric M.J. Morris , Jessica L. Kingston
{"title":"The relationship between risk perception, anxiety and paranoia – A predictive model in a community sample","authors":"Suzanne H. So ,&nbsp;Anson Kai Chun Chau ,&nbsp;Brandon A. Gaudiano ,&nbsp;Lyn Ellett ,&nbsp;Tania M. Lincoln ,&nbsp;Eric M.J. Morris ,&nbsp;Jessica L. Kingston","doi":"10.1016/j.xjmad.2024.100052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Biases in risk perception (e.g. excessive attribution of likelihood of negative events happening to oneself, or perceived harm of neutral events) have been suggested as risk factors for psychopathologies such as generalised anxiety and persecutory ideation, although this line of research is limited by small samples and a lack of a suitable risk perception scale.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using the Risk Perception Questionnaire, four risk perception dimensions (likelihood, harm, controllability, and intentionality) of negative and neutral events were tested in association with anxiety and paranoia. In view of common co-occurrence between the two symptom variables, their associations with risk perception were tested by using partial correlations (at baseline) and comparisons of cross-lagged path models (over 3 months).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A representative community-based sample of 445 adults were included. At baseline, after controlling for correlations between levels of anxiety and paranoia, anxiety was uniquely correlated with three risk perception dimensions for negative events (likelihood, harm, and intentionality), whereas paranoia was uniquely correlated with all risk perception dimensions for both negative and neutral events. The best-fitted cross-lagged path model revealed that, after controlling for auto-regressions within variables, baseline level of anxiety predicted perceived harm of negative events at 3 months, whereas baseline levels of perceived intentionality of neutral events and likelihood of negative events predicted level of paranoia at 3 months.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While risk perception of negative events is shared between anxiety and paranoia, risk perception of neutral events is uniquely characteristic of paranoia. Implications on maintenance of sub-clinical symptoms are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73841,"journal":{"name":"Journal of mood and anxiety disorders","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100052"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950004424000063/pdfft?md5=0077f63d286e2309cc26f2714a960730&pid=1-s2.0-S2950004424000063-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of mood and anxiety disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950004424000063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Biases in risk perception (e.g. excessive attribution of likelihood of negative events happening to oneself, or perceived harm of neutral events) have been suggested as risk factors for psychopathologies such as generalised anxiety and persecutory ideation, although this line of research is limited by small samples and a lack of a suitable risk perception scale.

Methods

Using the Risk Perception Questionnaire, four risk perception dimensions (likelihood, harm, controllability, and intentionality) of negative and neutral events were tested in association with anxiety and paranoia. In view of common co-occurrence between the two symptom variables, their associations with risk perception were tested by using partial correlations (at baseline) and comparisons of cross-lagged path models (over 3 months).

Results

A representative community-based sample of 445 adults were included. At baseline, after controlling for correlations between levels of anxiety and paranoia, anxiety was uniquely correlated with three risk perception dimensions for negative events (likelihood, harm, and intentionality), whereas paranoia was uniquely correlated with all risk perception dimensions for both negative and neutral events. The best-fitted cross-lagged path model revealed that, after controlling for auto-regressions within variables, baseline level of anxiety predicted perceived harm of negative events at 3 months, whereas baseline levels of perceived intentionality of neutral events and likelihood of negative events predicted level of paranoia at 3 months.

Conclusions

While risk perception of negative events is shared between anxiety and paranoia, risk perception of neutral events is uniquely characteristic of paranoia. Implications on maintenance of sub-clinical symptoms are discussed.

风险意识、焦虑和妄想症之间的关系--社区样本中的预测模型
背景风险认知方面的偏差(如过度归因于负面事件发生在自己身上的可能性,或认为中性事件具有危害性)被认为是导致广泛性焦虑症和被迫害妄想症等精神病理学的风险因素,尽管这一研究方向受到小样本和缺乏合适的风险认知量表的限制。鉴于这两种症状变量之间的共存性,我们使用部分相关性(基线时)和交叉滞后路径模型比较(3 个月内)来测试它们与风险感知之间的关联。基线时,在控制了焦虑和偏执水平之间的相关性后,焦虑与负面事件的三个风险感知维度(可能性、危害性和故意性)唯一相关,而偏执则与负面和中性事件的所有风险感知维度唯一相关。最佳拟合交叉滞后路径模型显示,在控制变量内的自动回归后,基线焦虑水平可预测 3 个月后对负面事件的危害感知,而对中性事件和负面事件可能性的感知基线水平可预测 3 个月后的偏执程度。本文讨论了亚临床症状维持的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of mood and anxiety disorders
Journal of mood and anxiety disorders Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental Health, Psychology (General), Behavioral Neuroscience
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信