Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30225050›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2018

Experimentally induced social threat increases paranoid thinking.

Vanessa Saalfeld, Zeina Ramadan, Vaughan Bell, Nichola J Raihani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Psychotomimetic compensation versus sensitization.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2024
    Review
  5. Social identification and paranoia.Royal Society open science · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Social reward, punishment, and prosociality in paranoia.Journal of abnormal psychology · 2021
    Article
  15. Derationalizing Delusions.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. An evolutionary perspective on paranoia.Nature human behaviour · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vanessa SaalfeldDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.
Zeina RamadanDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Vaughan BellDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Nichola J RaihaniDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2339-9889
University College London · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to attribute intentions to others is a hallmark of human social cognition but is altered in paranoia. Paranoia is the most common positive symptom of psychosis but is also present to varying degrees in the general population. Epidemiological models suggest that psychosis risk is associated with low social rank and minority status, but the causal effects of status and group affiliation on paranoid thinking remain unclear. We examined whether relative social status and perceived group affiliation, respectively, affect live paranoid thinking using two large-

Indexed as

game theorygroup affiliationparanoiasocial ranksocial threat

Identifiers

PMID30225050
PMCPMC6124070
OpenAlexW2785061076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.