http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23661767
The structure of paranoia in the general population.
Source
PhD, FRCP, FRCPsych, Mental Health Sciences Unit, University College London Faculty of Brain Sciences, UK; Orla McBride, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Ulster, Northland Road, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, UK; Craig Steel, PhD, Charlie Waller Institute, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK; Elizabeth Kuipers, BSC, MSc, PhD, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Mirjana Radovanovič, MD, MSc, University Psychiatric Hospital, Alcoholism Treatment Center, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Traolach Brugha, MD, FRCPsych, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, UK; Rachel Jenkins, MD, FRCPsych, WHO Collaborating Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, UK; Howard I. Meltzer (deceased), PhD, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, UK; Daniel Freeman, PhD, DClinPSy, FBPsS, Department of Psychiatry, Oxford University, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Psychotic phenomena appear to form a continuum with normal experience and beliefs, and may build on common emotional interpersonal concerns.
AIMS:
We tested predictions that paranoid ideation is exponentially distributed and hierarchically arranged in the general population, and that persecutory ideas build on more common cognitions of mistrust, interpersonal sensitivity and ideas of reference.
METHOD:
Items were chosen from the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II) questionnaire and the Psychosis Screening Questionnaire in the second British National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity (n = 8580), to test a putative hierarchy of paranoid development using confirmatory factor analysis, latent class analysis and factor mixture modelling analysis.
RESULTS:
Different types of paranoid ideation ranged in frequency from less than 2% to nearly 30%. Total scores on these items followed an almost perfect exponential distribution (r = 0.99). Our four a priori first-order factors were corroborated (interpersonal sensitivity; mistrust; ideas of reference; ideas of persecution). These mapped onto four classes of individual respondents: a rare, severe, persecutory class with high endorsement of all item factors, including persecutory ideation; a quasi-normal class with infrequent endorsement of interpersonal sensitivity, mistrust and ideas of reference, and no ideas of persecution; and two intermediate classes, characterised respectively by relatively high endorsement of items relating to mistrust and to ideas of reference.
CONCLUSIONS:
The paranoia continuum has implications for the aetiology, mechanisms and treatment of psychotic disorders, while confirming the lack of a clear distinction from normal experiences and processes.
