Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:59:14.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Thought–Action Fusion in Schizophrenia: A Preliminary Investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

David Berle*
Affiliation:
Sydney West Area Health Service, Australia. dberle@bigpond.net.au
Alex Blaszczynski
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia.
Danielle A. Einstein
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Psychology, Westmead Hospital, Australia.
Ross G. Menzies
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney, Australia.
*
*Address for correspondence: David Berle, Nepean Anxiety Disorders Clinic, Department of Psychological Medicine, Nepean Hospital, PO Box 63, Penrith NSW 2751 Australia.
Get access

Abstract

Thought–action fusion (TAF), a belief that one's thoughts can either increase the likelihood of a given event or imply the immorality of one's character, is associated with a range of disorders, but has not yet been investigated in relation to psychosis. We sought to determine whether TAF beliefs are endorsed by individuals with chronic schizophrenia. Twenty-seven adults with chronic schizophrenia completed self-report measures of TAF, magical ideation, delusional beliefs and obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Scores were compared with a gendermatched nonclinical group (n = 27) and associations between self-report measures were investigated for the chronic schizophrenia sample. TAF Likelihood–Others, magical ideation and obsessive–compulsive symptoms were endorsed to a greater extent by those with chronic schizophrenia than by controls. The participants with chronic schizophrenia however, did not generally endorse TAF statements at level greater than ‘neutral’. TAF Moral, magical ideation and obsessive– compulsive symptoms were associated with scores on the delusional beliefs measure. We conclude that TAF beliefs may not especially characterise the thinking styles of those with schizophrenia. These findings await replication using a larger sample.

Type
Standard Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)