Author
Listed:
- Katherine Newman-Taylor
- Thomas Richardson
- Rachel Lees
- Katherine Petrilli
- Helen Bolderston
- Chandni Hindocha
- Tom P Freeman
- Michael A. P. Bloomfield
Abstract
Heavy cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of psychosis. However, the psychological mechanisms involved, and interactions with established risk factors for cannabis-related psychosis, remain unclear. This study examined the role of cognitive fusion, a candidate vulnerability factor for psychosis, during acute THC intoxication, and the interaction with key risk factors – developmental trauma and schizotypy. Twenty general population cannabis-using participants were administered THC or placebo in a within-participants, double-blinded randomised study. Developmental trauma, schizotypy and cognitive fusion were all associated with psychotic experiences during intoxication. Cognitive fusion accounted for increased psychotic experiences in those with developmental trauma and high schizotypy. Cognitive fusion may be a key mechanism by which developmental trauma and schizotypy increase risk of psychosis from cannabis use. This initial study is limited by a small sample and correlational design; a larger scale mediation study is now needed to support a causal argument. The findings have implications for psychological treatments and identifying those at risk of cannabis-related psychosis. Psychological interventions that target cognitive fusion may be more effective than generic approaches. People prone to cognitive fusion, particularly those with a history of developmental trauma and high in schizotypy, may be at higher risk for cannabis-related psychosis.
Suggested Citation
Katherine Newman-Taylor & Thomas Richardson & Rachel Lees & Katherine Petrilli & Helen Bolderston & Chandni Hindocha & Tom P Freeman & Michael A. P. Bloomfield, 2021.
"Cognitive fusion as a candidate psychological vulnerability factor for psychosis: An experimental study of acute ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) intoxication,"
Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 167-174, April.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:167-174
DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2020.1853203
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:13:y:2021:i:2:p:167-174. 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.