Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41554607›Full record

ArticleBMJ mental health2026

How epistemic trust, mistrust and credulity relate to mental health, personality pathology, treatment engagement and relationship in psychotherapeutic and psychiatric settings.

Anna-Lena Bröcker, Tobias Nolte, Maria Böttche, Christine Knaevelsrud, André Kerber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Anna-Lena BröckerDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9933-2213
Tobias NolteResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Maria BöttcheGerman Center for Mental Health (DZPG), partner site Berlin/Potsdam, Berlin, Germany.
Christine KnaevelsrudGerman Center for Mental Health (DZPG), partner site Berlin/Potsdam, Berlin, Germany.
André KerberGerman Center for Mental Health (DZPG), partner site Berlin/Potsdam, Berlin, Germany andre.kerber@fu-berlin.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8588-7784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpistemic trust describes the capacity to appropriately identify others as reliable and relevant sources of information, an ability closely linked to attachment and social learning. Epistemic disruption can manifest as heightened suspicion (mistrust) or excessive reliance (credulity) vis-à-vis others, affecting mentalizing abilities and increasing vulnerability to psychopathology and maladaptive traits. These interdependent and multidirectional dynamics are pivotal to therapeutic learning, and thus to therapeutic change.

objectiveThis study examined associations between epistemic trust and disruption, markers of psychopathology, therapeutic relationship quality and treatment-seeking behaviour.

methodA naturalistic sample of 912 participants, recruited via a mental health app, completed the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire, along with self-reports capturing internalising symptoms, personality functioning, maladaptive traits and the perceived therapeutic relationship within the previous 6 months. Treatment-seeking behaviour and the number of sessions utilized in the past year were further explored-both in psychotherapeutic and psychiatric contexts.

findingsEpistemic mistrust and credulity showed consistent relationships with markers of psychopathology. Higher epistemic (mis)trust correlated with more positive (negative) ratings of various aspects of the therapeutic relationship, including genuineness, realism, expectations, congruence and responsivity-over the past 6 months. Epistemic trust positively predicted the amount of psychotherapy sessions, while epistemic mistrust negatively predicted treatment-seeking, both controlled for personality dysfunction. Epistemic credulity predicted mental health app use-all assessed retrospectively (past year).

conclusionThe results encourage further in-depth exploration of trust-related aspects of the therapeutic alliance and investigation of mechanisms of change in therapeutic processes that may facilitate the transition from mistrust and credulity to trust. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Even though the magnitude and direction of effects remain to be clarified, patients with epistemic mistrust may enter a self-reinforcing cycle of reduced openness and ineffective mentalizing, potentially impacting therapeutic effectiveness. Interventions targeting epistemic disruption and impaired personality functioning seem to be crucial for improving therapeutic outcomes, including psychopharmacological treatment effectiveness.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersPatient Acceptance of Health CarePersonalityProfessional-Patient RelationsPsychotherapyTrustAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAdult psychiatryPersonality disordersPsychopharmacologyPsychotherapeutic ProcessesTherapeutic Alliance

Identifiers

PMID41554607
PMCPMC12820883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.