↓ Skip to main content

The network structure of paranoia in the general population

Overview of attention for article published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
96 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
The network structure of paranoia in the general population
Published in
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00127-018-1487-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vaughan Bell, Ciarán O’Driscoll

Abstract

Bebbington and colleagues' influential study on 'the structure of paranoia in the general population' used data from the British National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey and latent variable analysis methods. Network analysis is a relatively new approach in psychopathology research that considers mental disorders to be emergent phenomena from causal interactions among symptoms. This study re-analysed the British National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey data using network analysis to examine the network structure of paranoia in the general population. We used a Graphical Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (glasso) method that estimated an optimal network structure based on the Extended Bayesian Information Criterion. Network sub-communities were identified by spinglass and EGA algorithms and centrality metrics were calculated per item and per sub-community. We replicated Bebbington's four component structure of paranoia, identifying 'interpersonal sensitivities', 'mistrust', 'ideas of reference' and 'ideas of persecution' as sub-communities in the network. In line with previous experimental findings, worry was the most central item in the network. However, 'mistrust' and 'ideas of reference' were the most central sub-communities. Rather than a strict hierarchy, we argue that the structure of paranoia is best thought of as a heterarchy, where the activation of high-centrality nodes and communities is most likely to lead to steady state paranoia. We also highlight the novel methodological approach used by this study: namely, using network analysis to re-examine a population structure of psychopathology previously identified by latent variable approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Unspecified 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 39 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#661,176
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#105
of 2,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,909
of 452,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#3
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.