Discrepancies of implicit and explicit self-esteem as predictors of attributional bias and paranoia

1Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective The current study aimed to examine the association of implicit self-esteem, explicit self-esteem and their interaction with paranoia and attributional bias. The relationship of the size and the direction of the discrepancy between implicit and explicit self-esteem with paranoia and attributional bias was examined. Methods A total of 128 female college students participated. We administered the Implicit Association Test to assess implicit self-esteem, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to measure explicit self-esteem. Paranoia Scale was used, and the attributional bias was assessed using the Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire. Results Results showed that explicit but not implicit self-esteem was negatively associated with paranoia, blame bias and hostility perception bias in ambiguous situations. The interaction of implicit and explicit self-esteem was associated with hostility perception in ambiguous situations. As for the discrepancy, the size of the discrepancy between implicit and explicit self-esteem was positively associated with hostility perception in ambiguous situations. Moreover, the direction of the discrepancy was specifically relevant: damaged self-esteem (high implicit and low explicit self-esteem) was associated with increased levels of paranoia, blame bias and hostility perception in ambiguous situations. Conclusion These findings provide new insights into the role of the implicit and explicit self-esteem in attributional bias and paranoia and point to damaged self-esteem as a possible vulnerability marker for illogical attribution of blaming others and perceiving hostility in social situations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, Y. J., Park, J. Y., Chung, K. M., Song, Y. M., & Jhung, K. (2019). Discrepancies of implicit and explicit self-esteem as predictors of attributional bias and paranoia. Psychiatry Investigation, 16(3), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2018.12.24

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free