A Q‐methodological study of hearing voices: A preliminary exploration of voice hearers’ understanding of their experiences

Abstract

Using Q-methodology and structured interviews, this preliminary study set out to explore how a diverse range of voice hearers construed their experience of hearing voices. Following factor analysis of 20 completed Q-sorts, six factors emerged. Pejorative media stereotypes about voice hearers were rejected, and despite the dominance of the biomedical model in our culture, on no factor did participants adhere to all of the biomedical concepts. All six factors endorsed some elements of psychological discourse on voice-hearing experiences. It is argued that attempting to understand voice hearers within a single theoretical framework may limit or adversely affect engagement and understanding of an individual. Consistent with previous research, users of mental-health services were more likely to find voices frightening and perceive them as negative experiences than non-users. However, some non-users found managing some of their voices difficult despite having seemingly positive beliefs about the experience of hearing voices. Comment is made on the potential therapeutic implications of this study along with some acknowledgement of its limitations.

Hallucinations from a Cognitive Perspective

“…The presence of an affective dimension in hallucinations has been observed in a number of studies 17,19,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] and may include the emotional responses to hallucinations, the affective contents of hallucinations, or both. Emotion (especially anxiety and depression) has been found to be important in triggering hallucinations.…”

Q Methodology and a Delphi Poll: A Useful Approach to Researching a Narrative Approach to Therapy

“…Examples include studies of lesbian identities (Kitzinger & Stainton Rogers, 1985), health and illness (Stainton Rogers, 1991), rebelliousness (Stenner & Marshall, 1995) and hearing voices (Jones et al 2003).…”

A Match Made in Heaven: A Marginalized Methodology for Studying the Marginalized

“…It was noted at the outset that marginalization can apply intrapersonally as well as interpersonally inasmuch as some tendencies within a single individual can be privileged over others, as when the overly religious person denies interest in the affairs of the flesh, or when the individual forgoes personal gain for the greater good of the community, or when someone hears voices that run contrary to conventional practices (e.g., Jones et al, 2003). The following single cases bear on this issue and arise from Downs's (1957) assertions about voting, and in particular that the rational voter "approaches every situation with one eye on the gains to be had, the other eye on costs, a delicate ability to balance them, and a strong desire to follow wherever rationality leads.…”