Relationship of neurocognitive ability, perspective taking, and psychoticism with hostile attribution bias in non-clinical participants: Theory of mind as a mediator

Abstract

Objectives: Hostile attribution bias is reportedly common from non-clinical population to those with serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, and is known to be closely related to theory of mind (ToM). This study aimed to investigate whether ToM skills mediate the relationship among neurocognitive ability, personality traits, and attribution bias.

Methods: A total of 198 (101 females) non-clinical youths were recruited. To assess their neurocognitive ability and ToM skills, the participants were asked to complete Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) and the Korean version of the Reading the Mind in Eyes Test (K-RMET). To determine their personality traits, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (psychoticism) and interpersonal reactivity index (perspective taking) were used. To evaluate hostile attribution bias, the Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire was administered. Path analysis and bias-corrected percentile bootstrap methods were used to estimate model fit and the parameters of the mediating effects.

Results: Based on model comparison, the best model characterized (1) two direct pathways from psychoticism and the K-RMET to hostility attribution bias and (2) three indirect pathways, wherein SPM, perspective taking, and psychoticism influenced hostile attribution bias through K-RMET. The final model fit indices were good [x 2/df = 1.126; comparative fit index = 0.996; root mean square error of approximation = 0.026; standard root mean square residual = 0.026 and Akaike information criterion = 28.251] and the K-RMET fully mediated the association between SPM, perspective taking, psychoticism, and hostile attribution bias.

Conclusion: The main findings suggested that ToM skills, such as the RMET, play an important role in explaining the relationship among neurocognitive ability, personality traits, and hostile attribution bias. ToM skills and a remediation strategy may need to be developed to balance the enhanced hostility bias that underlies the paranoia.

Methods: A total of 198 (101 females) non-clinical youths were recruited. To assess their neurocognitive ability and ToM skills, the participants were asked to complete Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) and the Korean version of the Reading the Mind in Eyes Test (K-RMET). To determine their personality traits, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (psychoticism) and interpersonal reactivity index (perspective taking) were used. To evaluate hostile attribution bias, the Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire was administered. Path analysis and bias-corrected percentile bootstrap methods were used to estimate model fit and the parameters of the mediating effects.

Results: Based on model comparison, the best model characterized (1) two direct pathways from psychoticism and the K-RMET to hostility attribution bias and (2) three indirect pathways, wherein SPM, perspective taking, and psychoticism influenced hostile attribution bias through K-RMET. The final model fit indices were good [x 2/df = 1.126; comparative fit index = 0.996; root mean square error of approximation = 0.026; standard root mean square residual = 0.026 and Akaike information criterion = 28.251] and the K-RMET fully mediated the association between SPM, perspective taking, psychoticism, and hostile attribution bias.

Conclusion: The main findings suggested that ToM skills, such as the RMET, play an important role in explaining the relationship among neurocognitive ability, personality traits, and hostile attribution bias. ToM skills and a remediation strategy may need to be developed to balance the enhanced hostility bias that underlies the paranoia.