Unusual experiences and their association with metacognition: investigating ASMR and Tulpamancy.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-08 DOI:10.1080/13546805.2021.1999798
Emma Palmer-Cooper, Nicola McGuire, Abigail Wright
{"title":"Unusual experiences and their association with metacognition: investigating ASMR and Tulpamancy.","authors":"Emma Palmer-Cooper,&nbsp;Nicola McGuire,&nbsp;Abigail Wright","doi":"10.1080/13546805.2021.1999798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unusual experiences in Tulpamancer and Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) communities are generally positive and sought after, unlike hallucinations and delusions in clinical populations. Metacognition, the ability to reflect on self-referential experiences, may aid sense-making around unusual experiences, reducing distress. This study investigated group differences in hallucination-proneness, delusion-proneness, and metacognition in these communities compared to controls, and whether metacognition predicted unusual experiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>243 participants reporting ASMR, Tulpamancy, or neither, with no history of psychosis, took part in an online observational study. Participants completed the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale, Metacognitions Questionnaire-30, and Brief Core Schema Scales to capture metacognition. A Tulpamancer+ (reporting ASMR) group was identified and included in analyses. ANCOVAs highlighted group differences in hallucination-proneness, with Tulpamancer+ scoring higher, and metacognitive beliefs, with Tulpamancers reporting lower metacognitive belief endorsement. There were no group differences in delusion-proneness, self-reflection, or self-schemas. Stepwise regression demonstrated metacognition does influence unusual experiences in the non-clinical population, and this influence varies across groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In non-clinical populations, unusual sensory experiences are not associated with increased metacognitive beliefs, but having multiple unusual experiences is associated with higher hallucination-proneness. Results suggest improving metacognition in clinical groups may help reduce distress related to unusual sensory experiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":51277,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","volume":"27 2-3","pages":"86-104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2021.1999798","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Unusual experiences in Tulpamancer and Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) communities are generally positive and sought after, unlike hallucinations and delusions in clinical populations. Metacognition, the ability to reflect on self-referential experiences, may aid sense-making around unusual experiences, reducing distress. This study investigated group differences in hallucination-proneness, delusion-proneness, and metacognition in these communities compared to controls, and whether metacognition predicted unusual experiences.

Methods: 243 participants reporting ASMR, Tulpamancy, or neither, with no history of psychosis, took part in an online observational study. Participants completed the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale, Metacognitions Questionnaire-30, and Brief Core Schema Scales to capture metacognition. A Tulpamancer+ (reporting ASMR) group was identified and included in analyses. ANCOVAs highlighted group differences in hallucination-proneness, with Tulpamancer+ scoring higher, and metacognitive beliefs, with Tulpamancers reporting lower metacognitive belief endorsement. There were no group differences in delusion-proneness, self-reflection, or self-schemas. Stepwise regression demonstrated metacognition does influence unusual experiences in the non-clinical population, and this influence varies across groups.

Conclusions: In non-clinical populations, unusual sensory experiences are not associated with increased metacognitive beliefs, but having multiple unusual experiences is associated with higher hallucination-proneness. Results suggest improving metacognition in clinical groups may help reduce distress related to unusual sensory experiences.

不寻常的经历及其与元认知的关系:调查ASMR和Tulpamancy。
背景:与临床人群中的幻觉和妄想不同,在Tulpamancer和自主感觉经络反应(ASMR)群体中,不寻常的经历通常是积极的和受追捧的。元认知,一种反思自我参照经历的能力,可能有助于在不寻常的经历中找到意义,减少痛苦。本研究调查了与对照组相比,这些群体在幻觉倾向、妄想倾向和元认知方面的群体差异,以及元认知是否预测了不寻常的经历。方法:243名报告ASMR、Tulpamancy或两者均无,无精神病史的参与者参加了一项在线观察研究。参与者完成贝克认知洞察力量表、元认知问卷-30和简要核心图式量表来捕捉元认知。鉴定出一个Tulpamancer+(报告ASMR)组并纳入分析。ANCOVAs突出了各组在幻觉倾向和元认知信念方面的差异,Tulpamancer+得分更高,而Tulpamancer报告的元认知信念支持度较低。在妄想倾向、自我反思或自我图式方面没有组间差异。逐步回归表明,元认知确实会影响非临床人群的不寻常经历,而且这种影响在不同群体中有所不同。结论:在非临床人群中,不寻常的感官体验与增加的元认知信念无关,但多次不寻常的体验与更高的幻觉倾向相关。结果表明,改善临床组的元认知可能有助于减少与不寻常的感觉体验相关的痛苦。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (CNP) publishes high quality empirical and theoretical papers in the multi-disciplinary field of cognitive neuropsychiatry. Specifically the journal promotes the study of cognitive processes underlying psychological and behavioural abnormalities, including psychotic symptoms, with and without organic brain disease. Since 1996, CNP has published original papers, short reports, case studies and theoretical and empirical reviews in fields of clinical and cognitive neuropsychiatry, which have a bearing on the understanding of normal cognitive processes. Relevant research from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology and clinical populations will also be considered. There are no page charges and we are able to offer free color printing where color is necessary.
×
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