First, I will explain this using a metaphor.
The “transparent needle” I am about to describe does not mean being literally stabbed with a needle.
It is a metaphor for a situation in which someone is harmed or inconvenienced, but lies, denial, blame-shifting, changing the subject, concealment, and similar responses follow. The wound or damage undeniably remains, yet it becomes impossible to determine “what caused it,” “who was involved,” or “what intentions were at work.”
In this metaphor, the “needle” represents an act or impact that hurt someone, while the “remaining wound” represents the pain or harm that actually occurred. Its “transparency” represents how lies, denial, and concealment make the cause and responsibility difficult to see.
In other words, the structure creates not only the wound caused by the initial act, but also a second kind of suffering: being unable to establish what happened to oneself because of the subsequent concealment.
It is like being stabbed repeatedly from behind with a transparent needle.
Even when you turn around, you cannot see the needle itself. You cannot confirm who was involved, either.
Yet there are clearly wounds on your body, and the pain remains.
Someone who has experienced this repeatedly over a long period may eventually become wary that “the person behind me might stab me again.”
As more time passes, they may become wary not only of people who may have hurt them in the past, but also of people who move similarly, speak similarly, or are in similar situations.
If a third party sees only that final state, they may think, “This person is far too suspicious of others,” or “They have severe paranoid thinking.”
But did that vigilance truly begin out of nowhere?
Rather than beginning with unfounded suspicion, it is possible that real harm remained unresolved because of lies and denial, and that vigilance consequently spread to similar situations.
In this article, I will explain a pattern that I have observed and organized psychologically over many years: lies, denial, blame-shifting within the family, and wounds left unresolved as a result. I will consider it alongside relevant research.
There is something I want to make clear first.
This article does not claim that every thought held by a suspicious person is correct.
Nor does it simply assume that people with strong suspicions are ill and that their accounts cannot be trusted.
It is an article intended to make both possible: acknowledging real harm while leaving unsupported elements unresolved.
Who this article is written for
This article is intended to be especially useful for the following people.
• Professionals and supporters involved in psychology, healthcare, welfare, education, domestic violence or abuse support, and related fields, who listen to or assess people’s accounts
• People who have experienced environments where lies and denial were repeated and worry that they may have become overly suspicious
• People seeking to understand themselves and organize their mental state through their own efforts
• Family members, friends, and others supporting someone whose suspicions have become strong
This perspective is particularly important for professionals and supporters.
If they look only at the way a client currently appears suspicious of others and quickly conclude that it is a problem of personality or pathology, they may overlook what that vigilance began with.
Behind it may be real harm, repeated lies and denial, wounds that were never processed, and long-term uncertainty about being unable to establish what happened.
Of course, this does not mean treating every suspicion held by a client as fact.
It is important to distinguish between harm or effects that can be confirmed, causes or intentions that remain unknown, the person’s hypotheses, and the scope to which their vigilance has spread. This is not a perspective that pathologizes only the surface-level suspicion, nor one that confirms every suspicion as fact. It is a way to carefully examine the reality between those extremes.
This distinction is also important for people trying to help themselves through self-help.
You do not need to deny yourself by saying, “Every wound I felt was wrong.” But neither do you need to establish as fact even the parts where you cannot confirm who did it or with what intention.
Organizing confirmed facts, actual effects you experienced, what remains unknown, and the possibilities you are considering separately can help you avoid erasing your wounds while also making it less likely that your vigilance will spread to every person and situation.
It can also serve as a foothold for avoiding further suffering such as interpersonal distrust, isolation, self-doubt, and excessive vigilance.
This article is not intended to label anyone unilaterally as an abuser or as mentally ill.
It is intended to understand what is happening as accurately as possible without denying real wounds and while leaving what is unknown as unknown.
I do not use the term “paranoia” here as a diagnosis
In everyday conversation, a state of becoming prone to suspecting others may be described as “paranoid.” However, persecutory delusions, persecutory thinking, suspiciousness, and post-traumatic hypervigilance as addressed in psychiatry and clinical psychology are not, strictly speaking, the same thing.
Persecutory delusions and persecutory paranoia are generally studied as poorly supported beliefs that “others are intentionally trying to harm me.”
By contrast, feeling danger in an environment where actual abuse, violence, harassment, discrimination, control, or repeated lying exists cannot immediately be called a delusion.
In 2026, a research team in psychiatry, psychology, and philosophy, mainly based in Italy, systematically reviewed 36 qualitative studies on experiences ranging from suspiciousness to fixed persecutory delusions.
The review found that persecutory vigilance is not a single, uniform phenomenon, but varies greatly according to the strength of conviction, flexibility in revising one’s beliefs, distress, impact on daily life, developmental history, trauma, and social circumstances.
The researchers stated that because genuinely dangerous environments exist, care must be taken not to pathologize legitimate threat recognition. At the same time, they distinguished states in which vigilance dominates a person’s entire life, counterevidence can no longer be considered, and severe distress or isolation results.
What matters is not merely whether suspicion is present.
What happened? What did the vigilance begin with? How far has it spread? Can the person consider other possibilities? What effects is it having on daily life?
Without looking that far, it cannot be understood accurately.
Reference:A 2026 systematic review published in Schizophrenia Bulletin Open
The structure of the “transparent needle” that I recognized through long-term observation
Including my own experiences, I have continued to consider how long-term lies and denial within families affect people psychologically.
What emerged was the following structure.
- Within a family, someone is repeatedly hurt, troubled, or adversely affected.
- Those connected to the cause deny the facts, lie, or change the subject.
- Although harm and effects exist, the cause, perpetrator, and intention cannot be determined.
- The problem is not resolved and accumulates without being processed.
- Vigilance that “it might happen again” grows stronger.
- The vigilance spreads to similar events and ambiguous situations.
- Third parties see only the final appearance of “someone who is suspicious.”
- The person is treated as someone with severe paranoia, and the original harm becomes even less visible.
For convenience, I call this structure the “transparent needle model” in this article.
This is not a formally established academic term in current psychology. It is a hypothesis that organizes my own long-term observations in light of research on trauma, threat generalization, uncertainty, epistemic mistrust, gaslighting, and related topics.
An important feature of this hypothesis is separating the existence of a wound from the question of who caused it and with what intention.
Even if pain or damage can be confirmed, that alone does not establish the perpetrator or their intent.
But the inability to identify the perpetrator does not mean that the wound or damage itself can be treated as though it never existed.
A UK longitudinal study in which 80% of assault victims said they had become excessively afraid of others
There is research suggesting that vigilance toward others can spread after experiencing actual harm.
In 2013, Professor Daniel Freeman of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom—a clinical psychologist and researcher of persecutory thinking—and colleagues conducted a longitudinal study of 106 people who had experienced physical assault and attended hospital. They followed participants approximately four weeks, three months, and six months after the assault.
At the first assessment, 80% of participants said that they had become excessively afraid of other people after the assault. The percentage declined over time, but remained at 66% at subsequent assessments.
In addition, 33% met diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the first assessment, declining to 16% at later assessments.
The analysis found that although PTSD and persecutory vigilance were not identical, they were interrelated. Many psychological factors, including worry, negative beliefs about oneself, safety-seeking behaviors, and reduced cognitive flexibility, predicted both later PTSD symptoms and persecutory vigilance.
This study did not directly investigate lies within families.
However, it shows that after experiencing real harm, a person’s judgment that “other people may harm me too” can spread in a way that is by no means incomprehensible.
There may first be real harm, followed by heightened vigilance toward interpersonal relationships as a whole.
Reference:Freeman et al.’s 2013 longitudinal study
The mind broadens the range of vigilance to avoid missing danger
Psychology includes the concept of “threat generalization,” also called “fear generalization.”
This refers to the phenomenon in which, after experiencing danger in one object or situation, fear responses spread to other objects or situations with similar characteristics.
For example, a person attacked in a particular place may become tense not only in that location, but also in similar places, at similar times of day, around similar voices, or near people dressed similarly.
Missing danger may mean being hurt again. In that sense, slightly broadening one’s range of vigilance originally serves a protective function.
The problem is that vigilance can become too sensitive, reducing the accuracy with which safe and dangerous things are distinguished.
A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis by researchers including those at the University of Mannheim in Germany found a tendency toward stronger fear generalization across several anxiety and stress-related disorders. The effect size for threat appraisal was small but relatively stable.
However, the researchers also noted that results varied across disorders and that many studies could not determine whether fear generalization was a cause or a consequence of symptoms.
Reference:A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of fear generalization
In addition, a study by a research team including researchers at Maastricht University in the Netherlands of 113 young people aged 16 to 25 found that, among those with more adverse childhood caregiving experiences, stronger threat generalization was associated with a greater symptom burden, including anxiety, depression, and psychotic-like experiences.
Because this was a cross-sectional study, causal relationships cannot be established. Nevertheless, threat generalization is being examined as one factor that may link childhood victimization experiences with later broad psychological difficulties.
Reference:Lange et al.’s 2019 study of threat generalization
Even neutral facial expressions can appear to be cues of threat
In 2024, Benjamin Iffland, a psychology researcher at Bielefeld University in Germany, and colleagues examined how past peer victimization relates to brain responses when anticipating social evaluation.
Although the study was small, with 54 participants, people with more past victimization experiences showed a tendency toward stronger early information-processing responses not only to negative interpersonal stimuli but also to neutral stimuli.
The researchers suggested that, for people who have experienced interpersonal victimization, even a neutral face may signal a possible social threat.
This does not mean that the person is intentionally trying to think negatively.
Past experiences may have led them to process ambiguous interpersonal information in greater detail from an early stage and search for potential danger.
However, the study had few participants and included retrospective self-reports of past victimization, so its findings cannot simply be applied directly to lies within families.
Reference:A 2024 study from Bielefeld University
The state of “not knowing what happened” can itself exhaust a person
When a problem occurs within a family but the facts are denied, explanations repeatedly change, and the cause cannot be determined, the person is placed in intense uncertainty.
The relevant psychological term here is “intolerance of uncertainty.”
It refers to a tendency to feel strong distress or threat when important information is lacking and one cannot foresee what lies ahead.
In 2025, Jayne Morriss, a psychology researcher at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom, and colleagues analyzed data from 2,510 people collected at five sites in the UK, United States, Hong Kong, Germany, and Australia.
They found that multiple forms of interpersonal trauma—including emotional neglect, psychological abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse—were associated with higher intolerance of uncertainty. The association was especially evident for emotional neglect.
However, the proportion of variance explained was not large, and the study was a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. It therefore cannot establish that interpersonal trauma directly causes intolerance of uncertainty.
Even so, the findings are important when considering the possibility that experiences of “not knowing what will happen” or “not receiving the response one needs” in relationships may be related to distress about uncertainty.
Reference:A 2025 international collaborative study on interpersonal trauma and intolerance of uncertainty
Another study using the same international sample of 2,510 people found a moderate positive association between intolerance of uncertainty and persecutory thinking. Again, this confirms an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.
Reference:Research on intolerance of uncertainty and persecutory thinking
Unpredictability within the family also drew attention in a 2026 study of approximately 30,000 people
In 2026, research teams from the University of California, Irvine, Chapman University, Rady Children’s Hospital–Orange County, and other institutions analyzed data from 29,861 people obtained at 19 pediatric clinics.
The study showed that greater unpredictability in information conveyed by parents or the household, daily life, and the home environment was associated with depression, anxiety, sleep problems, behavioral difficulties, headaches, abdominal pain, and more.
Traditional adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and household unpredictability each provided independent information and, when combined, could sometimes capture risk in greater detail.
This study was also cross-sectional and did not measure lies within families directly.
However, it suggests that not only violence or explicit abuse, but unpredictability itself—“not knowing what will happen next” and inconsistency in reactions or the environment—may be related to children’s psychological well-being.
Reference:A 2026 study published in Nature Mental Health
Lies damage not only facts, but also trust in one’s own judgment
This is where research on gaslighting becomes relevant.
However, not every isolated lie, memory error, difference in perception, or insufficient explanation should be called gaslighting.
Gaslighting generally refers to psychological manipulation in which someone repeatedly denies another person’s memories, perceptions, or capacity for judgment, leading that person to wonder whether their own grasp of reality is wrong.
In 2025, Willis Klein, a psychology researcher at McGill University in Canada, Professor Jennifer A. Bartz, a social psychologist, and colleagues presented a theoretical model explaining how gaslighting may work.
The researchers focused on the “epistemic privilege” held by close others.
People do not understand the world alone. Through the responses of family members, partners, and close friends, they check whether their memories, feelings, judgments, and self-image are valid.
When those close people deny what actually occurred and repeatedly explain that the problem lies in the person’s memory or judgment, the person may accept the explanation that “my perception is wrong” rather than the possibility that “the other person is lying.”
Klein and colleagues explain this using the learning theory of “prediction error minimization.”
A discrepancy arises between the person’s expectations and reality. Each time, a close other says, “Your memory is wrong,” “You are overthinking it,” or “That never happened.” If this is repeated, the model proposes, trust in one’s own perceptual abilities may weaken, while dependence on the other person’s explanations may increase.
However, this is a compelling theoretical framework, not a longitudinal experiment that directly verified the entire process. The researchers themselves acknowledge that empirical research on gaslighting remains limited.
Reference:A theoretical model of gaslighting by McGill University and the University of Toronto
Epistemic mistrust: the state of being unable to trust anyone’s explanations
Another related concept is “epistemic trust” and “epistemic mistrust.”
Epistemic trust refers to the capacity to receive information conveyed by others as relevant, trustworthy, and applicable to oneself in other situations.
Conversely, when epistemic mistrust becomes strong, people may become more likely to worry that there is something behind another person’s explanation or that accepting information would be dangerous.
A 2025 study by researchers in Germany and the United Kingdom found that more adverse childhood caregiving experiences were associated with greater epistemic mistrust and greater difficulty with “mentalizing,” the flexible understanding of one’s own and others’ minds. Statistically, epistemic mistrust mediated the association between the two.
However, because it was a cross-sectional community study centered on university students, it did not prove temporal causality.
Reference:Research on adverse childhood caregiving, epistemic mistrust, and mentalizing
If someone is repeatedly lied to by close people and others also do not believe that they were harmed, they may shift from “I cannot trust only this person” to “I cannot easily trust people’s explanations themselves.”
This is where vigilance spreads from a particular person to the surrounding world as a whole.
Betrayal trauma: when someone who should protect you becomes the source of danger
“Betrayal trauma theory,” proposed by American cognitive psychologist Dr. Jennifer J. Freyd, also offers a clue to understanding this issue.
Harm within families is particularly complicated because the person who may cause harm is also someone on whom one depends for daily life, security, belonging, finances, attachment, and more.
The person who should protect you from danger can also become the source of danger and confusion. This contradiction creates a psychological burden different from being harmed by a stranger.
In a 2014 study of university students by Robyn L. Gobin, a psychology researcher, and Dr. Freyd, people with more trauma experiences involving betrayal by close others tended to report lower general trust and lower trust within relationships on questionnaires.
By contrast, a monetary behavioral task found no clear difference according to whether participants had experienced betrayal trauma.
This result is important. Past harm does not necessarily change trust behavior in every situation, and the trust a person feels, trust within a specific relationship, and behavior in an experimental setting may not align.
Reference:A 2014 study on betrayal trauma and trust
Whether a person who lies is aware of it and the impact on the recipient should be considered separately
Denial within families can take many forms.
Sometimes facts are intentionally concealed. In other cases, people may be unable to admit responsibility to protect themselves, their memory may genuinely have changed, or inattention or cognitive difficulties may mean they themselves do not accurately recognize what happened.
Therefore, a single instance of conflicting accounts cannot establish that “this person is intentionally gaslighting.”
On the other hand, if someone has received a specific explanation, knows that real wounds or harm have occurred, yet does not verify, correct, or prevent recurrence and keeps repeating the same behavior, it is not easy to say that they are completely unaware of it.
Rather than making definitive claims about what is in the other person’s mind, we need to focus on observable aspects.
• What behaviors are being repeated?
• What effects are occurring for whom?
• Did the person’s behavior change after the problem was explained?
• Did they cooperate with verification or repair?
• Do their explanations match records or third-party confirmation?
• Does the same problem continue after denial?
Even when intent remains uncertain, effects and repetition can sometimes be confirmed.
“Real harm occurred” and “vigilance spread” can both be true
The most important point in this topic is not to make it an either-or choice.
“Was the person truly harmed?”
“Has the person’s vigilance spread too far?”
These two possibilities can coexist.
The fact that real harm occurred does not mean that every suspicion that later arises is correct.
Conversely, the fact that some vigilance has spread too far does not mean that the original harm was a lie.
Losing this distinction leads to two extremes.
One extreme is to affirm everything the person suspects as fact.
The other extreme is to deny the harm they have suffered or the danger they currently face because their suspicion has spread.
What is needed is to examine the existence of harm and the spread of vigilance separately.
The danger that the real problem is silenced by treating someone as ill
When a person is highly vigilant, those around them may look only at that appearance and dismiss it as “because they are ill” or “because it is paranoia.” Then the person’s words become difficult to trust from the outset.
In philosophy and psychiatry, the unjustly reduced credibility given to a person’s testimony because of prejudice or social position is called “testimonial injustice,” or more broadly, “epistemic injustice.”
Eisuke Sakakibara of the University of Tokyo, a researcher in psychiatry and the philosophy of psychiatry, has argued that while mental-health professionals sometimes must assess patients’ statements as symptoms, diagnoses and prejudice toward mental illness can also create a danger that patients’ testimony will be dismissed more than necessary.
This does not mean that psychiatric care or diagnosis is unnecessary.
What matters is assessing psychological symptoms while also checking for real harm and safety.
The presence of psychological symptoms is not proof that the harm a person experienced does not exist.
Conversely, a history of harm is not proof that all of a person’s current judgments are accurate.
Reference:An examination of epistemic injustice in psychiatric care
When vigilance shifts from “adaptation” to a state that constricts life
Vigilance has a role in protecting us.
However, if the following states continue, vigilance may be starting not only to protect the person’s life but also to narrow it.
• Feeling that almost everyone intends to harm you
• Being unable to consider other possibilities even when there is contrary evidence
• Spending a great deal of time checking or monitoring
• Ongoing inability to sleep
• Severe restrictions on going out, work, or relationships
• Feeling likely to harm yourself or others out of fear or anger
• Being unable to sort out facts and interpretations on your own
Even in such cases, rather than denying the person by saying, “It was all delusion,” it is important to consult a professional who can understand trauma and the current safety situation as well.
Confirming real danger and reducing the distress caused by vigilance are not matters in which one must choose only one.
How I organize things in order to stay grounded
For many years, in order to understand my own mind, I have put into words what happened, the thoughts that arose automatically, my emotions, and my bodily reactions.
The meaning of writing is not to force an answer into certainty.
It is to prevent facts, emotions, interpretations, and hypotheses from becoming mixed together, so that each can be viewed separately.
When vigilance seems likely to spread, it can be helpful to write about the following categories separately.
1. Confirmed facts
Write the date, time, place, what you actually saw or heard, any remaining records, and specific damage.
Rather than writing, “That person definitely did it,” write, “The object was broken,” “I heard these words,” or “The record shows this time.”
2. The impact on me
Write the actual effects: that you were afraid, hurt, unable to sleep, troubled, or physically tense.
Emotions are not evidence that identifies a perpetrator. But they are important information for understanding the impact on you.
3. What is still unknown
Separate questions such as who did it, whether it was accidental, whether it was intentional, and why it happened.
Leaving unknown things as “unknown” is not weakness.
4. Hypotheses you are currently considering
Write multiple possibilities rather than only one.
For example: “Person A did it intentionally,” “Person A did it unintentionally,” “Someone else was involved,” or “It was an accident or a memory error.”
5. Evidence that supports the hypothesis and evidence against it
Write not only information that favors your hypothesis, but also information suggesting other possibilities.
This is not work to deny the harm you experienced. It is work to preserve the accuracy of your vigilance.
6. Safety measures you can take without waiting for certainty
Even if the perpetrator or intent has not been established, you can take safety measures such as keeping distance, retaining records, consulting a third party, managing dangerous items, or consulting a professional.
There is a middle ground between “do nothing because it cannot be established” and “condemn someone whose involvement has not been established.”
What I mean by “staying grounded” is not forcibly eliminating suspicion.
It means standing in a position like this:
“I will treat the fact that I was hurt or troubled as real. But if evidence is insufficient, I will leave unresolved who caused it and with what intention. I will take necessary safety measures, but I will not conclude more than the evidence supports.”
From this position, it becomes easier to avoid erasing harm while also restraining vigilance from spreading to unrelated people.
People around them should neither deny them nor agree unconditionally
When someone hears an account of harm, it is important not to immediately dismiss it by saying, “You are overthinking it.”
At the same time, there is no need to join them in making definitive claims about people or intentions for which evidence cannot be confirmed.
You can ask questions such as these.
“What actually happened?”
“Which parts can be confirmed?”
“Which parts are still unknown?”
“Is the danger continuing now?”
“What can be done now for safety?”
“Do you have room to consider other possibilities?”
“Has it become so distressing that you cannot sleep, eat, or function in daily life?”
This approach respects the person’s experience while making both fact-finding and psychological support possible.
What research shows and what remains unknown
The research introduced so far supports the following points.
• Fear of others and persecutory vigilance may spread after real interpersonal harm.
• Interpersonal trauma is associated with intense distress about uncertainty.
• Responses to fear and threat may generalize to similar situations and neutral stimuli.
• Adverse childhood caregiving experiences are associated with epistemic mistrust.
• Close others strongly influence a person’s self-understanding and perception of reality.
• Understanding persecutory vigilance requires examining developmental history, real danger, social circumstances, flexibility, and effects on daily life.
On the other hand, some points have not yet been directly demonstrated.
• If someone lies within a family, someone will inevitably become paranoid.
• Repeated lies within a family spread vigilance to the surrounding world in exactly the sequence described in this article.
• People with strong suspicion have inevitably suffered harm in the past.
• Understanding the mechanism alone can prevent all excessive vigilance.
• If a person has a history of harm, all their current suspicions are correct.
• If a person has psychological symptoms, their testimony about harm cannot be trusted.
The “transparent needle model” is an explanatory hypothesis integrating findings from multiple studies with my own long-term observations.
I believe further research is needed to investigate more directly how repeated denial within families may connect to uncertainty about causal attribution, threat generalization, epistemic mistrust, and interpersonal vigilance.
People do not necessarily begin to doubt out of nowhere
When we see someone whose suspicions have become strong, we tend to look only at their current thoughts and ask, “Why would they think that?”
But what is truly needed is to look at what that person experienced, what remained unresolved, and amid what kinds of uncertainty they developed heightened vigilance.
Rather than starting with unfounded suspicion, real harm may have remained unresolved because of denial and lies, and vigilance may consequently have spread even to similar situations.
People do not necessarily begin to doubt out of nowhere.
When real wounds are left unresolved through lies and denial, people may no longer know whom to be wary of, and their vigilance can spread to everyone around them.
That is why we must not look only at the final appearance of “someone who is suspicious” and treat that person as ill.
At the same time, the fact that there was real harm at the beginning does not mean that every suspicion arising afterward should be established as fact.
Acknowledge wounds as wounds.
Leave what is unknown unresolved.
While ensuring safety, recover the appropriate scope and accuracy of vigilance.
We need a perspective that supports both.
Please share your questions about this subtopic
If you have questions about related subtopics—such as lies within families, denial, gaslighting, excessive vigilance, or epistemic mistrust—please let me know in the comments. For example: “How should I think about a case like this?” or “How can I distinguish a lie from a memory error?”
Please do not include names, addresses, workplaces, or other information that could identify individuals. Describe the situation in generalized terms as far as possible. Questions you submit may be used as references for topics considered in future articles.
Please note that individual diagnoses, determinations of crimes, and emergency responses cannot be provided in the comments. If violence or serious danger is ongoing, or if you may harm yourself or others, do not wait for a reply to a comment; contact the police, a medical institution, or a local support service directly.
References and links
1. Freeman, D., et al. (2013). Paranoia and post-traumatic stress disorder in the months after a physical assault: a longitudinal study examining shared and differential predictors. Psychological Medicine.
Full text
2. Muscettola, A., et al. (2026). The Lived Experience of Paranoia: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin Open.
Full text
3. Morriss, J., et al. (2025). Associations Between Interpersonal Trauma and Intolerance of Uncertainty in an International Multi-Site Sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Full text
4. Morriss, J., et al. (2024). Associations between intolerance of uncertainty, paranoia, anxiety, and depression in an international multisite sample. Mental Health Science.
Article information
5. Iffland, B., Kley, H., & Neuner, F. (2024). Effects of peer victimization on cortical processing of social-evaluative stress in patients with major depressive disorder. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
Full text
6. Fraunfelter, L., Gerdes, A. B. M., & Alpers, G. W. (2022). Fear one, fear them all: A systematic review and meta-analysis of fear generalization in pathological anxiety. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
PubMed
7. Lange, I., et al. (2019). Neurobehavioural mechanisms of threat generalization moderate the link between childhood maltreatment and psychopathology in emerging adulthood. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience.
PubMed
8. Klein, W., Wood, S., & Bartz, J. A. (2025 / 2026 issue). A Theoretical Framework for Studying the Phenomenon of Gaslighting. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Full text
9. Schwarzer, N.-H., et al. (2025). Epistemic mistrust mediates the association between childhood maltreatment and impairments in mentalizing in a sample of university students. Child Abuse & Neglect.
Article PDF
10. Gobin, R. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). The impact of betrayal trauma on the tendency to trust. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy.
Article information
11. Sakakibara, E. (2023). Epistemic injustice in the therapeutic relationship in psychiatry. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.
Full text
12. Glynn, L. M., et al. (2026). Unpredictability is a childhood adversity that contributes to mental health problems. Nature Mental Health.
Full text
田舎のネットに、
もうひとつの選択肢。
WiMAXが窓際でやっとだった僕の家。Starlinkに替えた実体験と、導入前の確認ポイントをまとめました。
公式で詳細を見る（紹介リンク・新しいタブで開きます） 実体験と紹介特典を見る紹介リンクから条件を満たして契約すると、筆者に報酬が付与されます。
ウェブ制作・ツール開発のご案内
あなたの「発信したい」 「こんな仕組みがほしい」を、形に。
自分の経験や活動を伝えるサイトを作りたい。WordPressを使いやすくしたい。仕事の手間を減らすツールがほしい。
僕が運営する「TAKUMI Web Works」では、サイト制作からツール・システム開発まで、ご相談をお受けしています。まだ考えがまとまっていなくても、目的やご予算を伺いながら、必要なものを一緒に整理するところから始められます。
Related Articles
Conversation
Be the First Voice
読んだだけで終わらせないでください。
感じたことを、コメント・発信・メモなど、何かの形で外に出してみてください。
反応した瞬間から、変化は始まります。
この場所に、最初の感想や気づきをそっと残せます。