A randomised comparison of values and goals, versus goals only and control, for high nonclinical paranoia

Abstract

Background: Paranoia is common in the general population. Focusing on values and enhancing value-based acts may attenuate it. This study compared three brief (30-min, self-directed) online conditions: focusing on values and value-based goal setting (n = 30), goal setting only (n = 32) and non-values/goals control (n = 32) in a high paranoia sample. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to condition. State paranoia (primary outcome) and positive and negative self-views following a difficult interpersonal experience (secondary outcome) were assessed at baseline and two-weeks. Results: Intention-to-treat: state paranoia was significantly lower following the values condition as compared to non-values/goals control (ηp 2 =.148) and goals only (ηp 2 =.072). Only the former comparison was significant. Per-protocol: groups did not significantly differ (p =.077). Within-group effect sizes: values and value-based goal setting (intention-to-treat d =.82, per-protocol d =.78), goals only (intention-to-treat d =.41, per-protocol d =.42) non-values/goals control (intention-to-treat d =.25, per-protocol d =.24). Positive self-views increased in all conditions. The increase was largest for the values condition, but not significantly so. Limitations: Reliance on self-report, brief follow-up, predominantly White female sample. Conclusions: The values condition was most effective at reducing non-clinical paranoia. The values condition appeared to increase positive self-views more so than comparison groups, but the sample was small and the difference was non-significant.

More information

Identifiers

ORCID for Lyn Ellett: orcid.org/0000-0002-6051-3604

Catalogue record

Export record

Altmetrics