be that following MBCT, participants were able to reflect on their selves, recognising that they would like to be recovered and identifying their values and goals in life. However, there was no support for hypothesis three as there was no significant change in the distance between and which indicates that self self as recovered from psychosis although participants wanted to feel recovered from psychosis, they did not perceive themselves to be any closer to this goal post-group. Interestingly, scores on the QPR indicated an improvement in recovery. Although these findings may initially seem contradictory, they may reflect the idiosyncratic nature of recovery (Law & Morrison, 2014). The QPR measure explores personal recovery in relation to psychological distress, quality of life and empowerment, and so improvement in QPR scores can be achieved in the absence of a reduction in psychotic symptoms (Neil et al., 2009). However, the finding that participants did not construe themselves to be any closer to may indicate that there are other factors important to self as recovered from psychosis recovery that may not have been assessed using the QPR. It seems reasonable to suggest that a reduction in psychotic symptoms is likely to be a contributing factor to some participants’ recovery, even if not a priority. In contrast to the fourth hypothesis, the findings indicated a tightening of participants’ construing following MBCT. This indicates increased correlation between constructs, in that participants’ construing became more concrete and less flexible. Therapeutic benefit has more often been associated with a loosening of construing (e.g. Winter et al., 2007; Mason, 2008), with some contrasting evidence of tightening (Watson & Winter, 1997). Gould (2000) highlights that in new situations anxiety can lead to a tightening of construing as individuals react to the uncertainty by becoming even more fixed in their thinking. Of note, participants demonstrated tight construing
be that following MBCT, participants were able to reflect on their selves, recognising that they would like to be recovered and identifying their values and goals in life. However, there was no support for hypothesis three as there was no significant change in the distance between self and self as recovered from psychosis which indicates that although participants wanted to feel recovered from psychosis, they did not perceive themselves to be any closer to this goal post-group. Interestingly, scores on the QPR indicated an improvement in recovery. Although these findings may initially seem contradictory, they may reflect the idiosyncratic nature of recovery (Law & Morrison, 2014). The QPR measure explores personal recovery in relation to psychological distress, quality of life and empowerment, and so improvement in QPR scores can be achieved in the absence of a reduction in psychotic symptoms (Neil et al., 2009). However, the finding that participants did not construe themselves to be any closer to self as recovered from psychosis may indicate that there are other factors important to recovery that may not have been assessed using the QPR. It seems reasonable to suggest that a reduction in psychotic symptoms is likely to be a contributing factor to some participants’ recovery, even if not a priority. In contrast to the fourth hypothesis, the findings indicated a tightening of participants’ construing following MBCT. This indicates increased correlation between constructs, in that participants’ construing became more concrete and less flexible. Therapeutic benefit has more often been associated with a loosening of construing (e.g. Winter et al., 2007; Mason, 2008), with some contrasting evidence of tightening (Watson & Winter, 1997). Gould (2000) highlights that in new situations anxiety can lead to a tightening of construing as individuals react to the uncertainty by becoming even more fixed in their thinking. Of note, participants demonstrated tight construing
CPP_paper_accepted_manuscript.docx