GGZ Noord-Drenthe, Department of Psychotic Disorders, Dennenweg 9, 9404 LA, Assen, The Netherlands; University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Psychology, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129-B, 1018 WT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands; Parnassia Dijk en Duin, Westzijde 120, 1505 GB, Zaandam, The Netherlands.
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Jul;265:93-99. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.04.048. Epub 2018 Apr 14.
It has been proposed that mixed findings in studies investigating social cognition as a risk factor for violence in psychosis may be explained by utilizing a framework distinguishing between social-cognitive tests which measure relatively more basic operations (e.g. facial affect recognition) and measures of more complex operations (mentalizing, metacognition). The current study investigated which social cognitive and metacognitive processes are related to a violent history over and above illness-related deficits. Data from control participants (n = 33), patients with a psychotic disorder and no violent history (n = 27), and patients with a psychotic disorder in a forensic clinic (n = 23) were analyzed utilizing discriminant analysis. Metacognition and associative learning emerged as significant factors in predicting group membership between the three groups. In a follow-up analysis between only the patient groups, metacognitive Self-Reflectivity and Empathic Accuracy emerged as statistically significant predictors of group membership. The control group presented with higher levels of social cognitive and metacognitive capacity than patient groups, and the forensic patient group had lower levels than the non-forensic patient group. Our findings support previous research findings implying impaired metacognitive Self-Reflectivity in particular as a risk factor for violence.
有人提出,在研究社会认知作为精神病暴力风险因素时,混合研究结果可能可以通过利用一个区分测量相对更基本操作(例如面部情感识别)和更复杂操作(心理化、元认知)的社会认知测试的框架来解释。本研究调查了哪些社会认知和元认知过程与暴力史有关,而不仅仅是与疾病相关的缺陷。利用判别分析对来自对照组参与者(n=33)、无暴力史的精神病患者(n=27)和法医诊所精神病患者(n=23)的数据进行了分析。元认知和联想学习成为预测三组群体成员身份的重要因素。在仅对患者组进行的后续分析中,元认知自我反思和同理心准确性成为群体成员身份的统计学显著预测因素。对照组的社会认知和元认知能力水平高于患者组,而法医组的水平低于非法医组。我们的研究结果支持了先前的研究结果,表明元认知自我反思受损特别是作为暴力的风险因素。