Barnby J M, Deeley Q, Robinson O, Raihani N, Bell V, Mehta M A
Social and Cultural Neuroscience Research Group, Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Social and Cultural Neuroscience Research Group, Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Mar 11;7(3):191525. doi: 10.1098/rsos.191525. eCollection 2020 Mar.
The sensitization model suggests that paranoia is explained by over-sensitivity to social threat. However, this has been difficult to test experimentally. We report two preregistered social interaction studies that tested (i) whether paranoia predicted overall attribution and peak attribution of harmful intent and (ii) whether anxiety, interpersonal sensitivity and worry predicted the attribution of harmful intent. In Study 1, we recruited a large general population sample ( = 987) who serially interacted with other participants in multi-round dictator games and matched to fair, partially fair or unfair partners. Participants rated attributions of harmful intent and self-interest after each interaction. In Study 2 ( = 1011), a new sample of participants completed the same procedure and additionally completed measures of anxiety, worry and interpersonal sensitivity. As predicted, prior paranoid ideation was associated with higher and faster overall harmful intent attributions, whereas attributions of self-interest were unaffected, supporting the sensitization model. Contrary to predictions, neither worry, interpersonal sensitivity nor anxiety was associated with harmful intent attributions. In a third exploratory internal meta-analysis, we combined datasets to examine the effect of paranoia on trial-by-trial attributional changes when playing fair and unfair dictators. Paranoia was associated with a greater reduction in harmful intent attributions when playing a fair but not unfair dictator, suggesting that paranoia may also exaggerate the volatility of beliefs about the harmful intent of others.
致敏模型表明，偏执狂可通过对社会威胁的过度敏感来解释。然而，这很难通过实验进行验证。我们报告了两项预先注册的社会互动研究，它们测试了：（i）偏执狂是否预测有害意图的总体归因和峰值归因；（ii）焦虑、人际敏感性和担忧是否预测有害意图的归因。在研究1中，我们招募了一个大型普通人群样本（n = 987），他们在多轮独裁者博弈中与其他参与者依次互动，并与公平、部分公平或不公平的伙伴配对。参与者在每次互动后对有害意图和自身利益的归因进行评分。在研究2（n = 1011）中，一组新的参与者样本完成了相同的程序，并额外完成了焦虑、担忧和人际敏感性的测量。正如预测的那样，先前的偏执观念与更高、更快的总体有害意图归因相关，而自身利益的归因则不受影响，这支持了致敏模型。与预测相反，担忧、人际敏感性和焦虑均与有害意图归因无关。在第三次探索性内部荟萃分析中，我们合并数据集以检验偏执狂在扮演公平和不公平独裁者时对逐次归因变化的影响。当扮演公平而非不公平的独裁者时，偏执狂与有害意图归因的更大减少相关，这表明偏执狂也可能夸大对他人有害意图信念的波动性。
