Author
Listed:
- Steffen Moritz
- Liz Rietschel
- Ruth Veckenstedt
- Francesca Bohn
- Brooke C. Schneider
- Tania M. Lincoln
- Anne Karow
Abstract
Background: Phenomenological descriptions of psychosis traditionally emphasize the subjective burden that psychosis inflicts on patients. However, a growing body of work suggests that in a subgroup of patients, psychotic symptoms are appraised as positive. The present study set out to explore the frequency of positive, negative and ambivalent attitudes towards positive symptoms. We were also interested in characterizing the phenomenological structure of positive symptoms.Method: Participants were recruited over the Internet via specialized psychosis forums. Among other questionnaires, participants completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) scale. In addition, we administered a novel scale called Subjective Perception of Positive Symptoms (SUPPOSY) that assesses core positive symptoms along various dimensions (e.g. emotional appraisal, impact on daily life).Results: For all symptom clusters, the majority of participants expressed ambivalence. Psychotic symptoms were associated with both self-reported positive and negative emotions. Experiencing regret should positive symptoms disappear was associated with prior medication noncompliance.Discussion: The present study indicates that symptoms are neither regarded as an “emotional hell” nor as a “preferred reality”. Thus, for a symptom to become a target of treatment, various aspects of the symptom have to be carefully weighed.
Suggested Citation
Steffen Moritz & Liz Rietschel & Ruth Veckenstedt & Francesca Bohn & Brooke C. Schneider & Tania M. Lincoln & Anne Karow, 2015.
"The other side of “madness”: frequencies of positive and ambivalent attitudes towards prominent positive symptoms in psychosis,"
Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 14-24, January.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:7:y:2015:i:1:p:14-24
DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2013.865137
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:7:y:2015:i:1:p:14-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPSY20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.