Hearing Voices: What Psychology Tells Us About Hallucinations and Mental Health

Hearing voices can occur in different circumstances. Understanding what the experience means requires attention to perception, personal history, distress and the wider clinical picture.

Hearing a voice that others cannot hear may be unsettling or confusing. For some people, it is neither particularly distressing nor disruptive. These differences matter: the experience deserves careful attention without an automatic diagnostic assumption.

Psychology investigates both how voices arise and why they affect people differently. It does not offer one explanation that fits everyone. Research across clinical and non-clinical populations instead suggests a varied phenomenon, with overlapping features but different support needs (Baumeister et al., 2017). Taking voices seriously means listening to the person, assessing relevant health concerns and avoiding conclusions based on the experience alone.

What does hearing voices actually mean?

An auditory verbal hallucination is usually understood as an experience of speech without a corresponding external speaker or sound. The term describes an experience; it does not explain its cause. It also differs from an illusion, in which an existing sound is misperceived, or from ordinary inner speech recognised as one's own thinking (Larøi et al., 2012).

Experiences described as hearing voices are not identical. Voices may be occasional or frequent, fleeting or prolonged, apparently inside the head or located in the surrounding space. They can sound familiar or unfamiliar, speak directly to someone or comment on what they are doing. Their content and emotional tone may be comforting, neutral, critical or frightening. Perceived identity, control, distress and effects on everyday functioning also vary.

A mixed-methods survey found accounts extending beyond a literal sound, including thought-like and mixed experiences (Woods et al., 2015). This makes a simple yes-or-no question about voices inadequate for understanding someone's experience. Equally, finding an internal location does not establish that a voice is ordinary thinking or clinically unimportant.

Context matters. Perceptual experiences can occur while falling asleep or waking, and hallucinations may accompany substance effects, medication side effects or medical conditions (NHS, 2025). Reviews also describe experiences associated with bereavement and hearing impairment (Larøi et al., 2012; Waters & Fernyhough, 2017). These contexts require different assessment considerations. Similar descriptions do not demonstrate a shared underlying mechanism.

Hearing voices does not automatically mean schizophrenia

Auditory hallucinations can occur in schizophrenia, but they do not establish that diagnosis on their own. Assessment considers a broader pattern, potentially including delusions, disorganised thinking or speech, reduced motivation or emotional expression, changes in functioning and the course of difficulties. Other possible explanations must also be considered.

A systematic review found extensive overlap between hallucinations reported in schizophrenia and those occurring in other psychiatric, medical and non-clinical contexts. The authors cautioned against making a schizophrenia diagnosis from the features of hallucinations alone (Waters & Fernyhough, 2017).

Psychotic experiences can occur across diagnostic categories, including mood disorders. An unusual experience reported on a questionnaire is also not equivalent to a clinically assessed psychotic disorder. Diagnosis involves interpreting symptoms in their wider context, rather than treating one answer as decisive.

Schizophrenia itself is heterogeneous. A diagnosis does not tell us everything about a person's symptoms, relationships, abilities or future. Care should support individual recovery goals, rather than presume an inevitable outcome (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], 2014). Describing a voice's content is not a justification for stereotyping the person who hears it.

What psychological theories attempt to explain

Source monitoring and inner speech

Source monitoring concerns how we identify where an experience or memory came from. Some theories propose that internally generated verbal material can be experienced as coming from another source. Inner speech, memory and the monitoring of self-generated activity are therefore important research topics.

A meta-analysis found an association between hallucinations and biases towards identifying internally generated material as external, particularly in source-monitoring and signal-detection tasks. Support was less consistent for other self-monitoring tasks (Brookwell et al., 2013). These findings support investigation of source attribution; they do not establish that every voice is simply a misidentified thought.

A more recent systematic review found evidence for several cognitive differences, but mixed or limited support for others, and significant mismatches between theoretical claims and study methods (Bell et al., 2024). One cognitive account is unlikely to capture every kind of voice hearing.

Predictive processing

Predictive-processing approaches describe perception as involving both incoming sensory information and expectations. Some hallucination hypotheses concern the balance between these influences: expectations may, under certain conditions, contribute too strongly to what is perceived.

In an experiment, Powers et al. (2017) paired visual cues with tones. Participants sometimes reported a tone when none was presented, and people who regularly heard voices were more susceptible to these conditioned experiences. Computational modelling supported a role for stronger perceptual expectations.

This is experimental evidence about perception under controlled conditions. Briefly detecting an absent tone is not the same as hearing a complex, personally meaningful voice in everyday life. Extending a laboratory finding to all clinical experiences would go beyond the evidence.

Trauma, stress and the complexity of psychotic experiences

Adversity is relevant for some people, but a trauma history should neither be assumed nor imposed as an explanation. A meta-analysis found an association between childhood adversity and later psychosis across several study designs, including prospective research (Varese et al., 2012). Its outcome was psychosis more broadly, not a single, uniform category of voices.

Prospective findings strengthen the evidence that adversity can precede later difficulties. They do not eliminate confounding or explain an individual's experience. Retrospective accounts also involve uncertainty about recall and timing. Trauma-related models propose pathways involving intrusive memories, dissociation or expectations of threat; these remain possible explanations for some experiences, rather than universal mechanisms (Gibson et al., 2016).

Stress-vulnerability approaches provide a broader framework. Biological and developmental vulnerabilities, psychological processes and environmental demands may interact, with protective factors also influencing outcomes. Cognitive models similarly connect unusual experiences with emotion, reasoning and social circumstances (Garety et al., 2001). This framework guides enquiry; it is not proof of a particular cause.

Sleep deserves attention too. In the OASIS randomised trial, an insomnia intervention reduced self-reported hallucinatory experiences in university students (Freeman et al., 2017). The experiment supports a contributory role for sleep difficulties in that population. It does not show that sleep disruption explains all voices, or that a sleep intervention replaces psychosis treatment.

Why some voices are distressing and others are not

Distress is related to more than whether a voice occurs. Frightening content, interruptions to everyday activity and the sense of being threatened can all be clinically important. Research also examines what the voice seems to mean: whether it appears powerful, hostile or impossible to resist.

Birchwood and Chadwick (1997) found relationships between beliefs about voices, emotional responses and coping behaviour. Their study supports the relevance of appraisal, but an association does not establish that beliefs alone produce distress. Content, mood and circumstances remain part of the picture.

Comparisons between clinical and non-clinical voice hearers suggest that distress, perceived control, beliefs about voices and associated emotional difficulties can distinguish groups more clearly than features such as perceived location (Baumeister et al., 2017). Some people experience voices without substantial disruption; this does not mean their experiences are identical to those of people who need care.

Nor does it mean distress is a choice. Changing an interpretation can be difficult, especially when experiences feel convincing or occur alongside depression, anxiety, disrupted sleep or limited support. Social isolation and fear of rejection may also matter. A useful response considers the person's circumstances, safety, preferences and practical needs, rather than instructing them to think differently.

Why psychological formulation matters

Assessment asks what is happening and what needs attention. A psychological formulation brings information together into a working explanation of how difficulties may have developed and what may be sustaining them. It should be collaborative and revisable, rather than presented as a definitive account of someone's mind (Division of Clinical Psychology, 2011).

For voice hearing, enquiry may include developmental history, current pressures, sleep, relationships, coping responses and the person's own understanding. Trauma may be relevant, but discussing it requires sensitivity and should not become a search for an assumed hidden cause. Strengths, supportive relationships and other protective factors belong in the formulation too.

Physical health, hearing, prescribed medication and substance use also require consideration. A psychological explanation cannot rule out a medical cause. NICE recommends comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment for people with psychotic symptoms, including medical, psychological, developmental and social domains (NICE, 2014).

A formulation can suggest questions to investigate and priorities for support. Its usefulness depends on the quality of assessment and on whether it helps the person and team make sense of their circumstances. It must remain open to correction. A coherent story is not, by itself, evidence that the proposed mechanism is true.

What evidence-based treatment can offer

When voices occur within psychosis, care may combine psychological treatment, medication and practical support. NICE recommends oral antipsychotic medication alongside individual cognitive behavioural therapy and family intervention for first-episode psychosis, with treatment decisions discussed collaboratively (NICE, 2014). These recommendations should not be extended automatically to every person who reports voices.

CBT for psychosis, usually called CBTp, can explore meanings attributed to experiences, develop coping strategies and address distress or interference with daily life. Goals vary: some people prioritise reducing voices, while others want less fear, improved sleep or greater freedom to participate in everyday activities. Treatment need not define success as eliminating every voice (NHS, 2023).

A network meta-analysis found benefits of CBT for positive symptoms in schizophrenia, although effects depended on the comparison treatment and confidence in estimates varied. The trials generally studied psychological therapy added to antipsychotic treatment (Bighelli et al., 2018). They therefore cannot establish that CBT universally replaces medication.

Family interventions may support communication, shared understanding and relapse prevention. A systematic review and network meta-analysis found evidence that several approaches reduced relapse compared with usual care (Rodolico et al., 2022). Involving relatives should respect the person's circumstances and preferences; it should not imply that families caused the difficulties.

Medication can help manage psychotic symptoms, while benefits and side effects require individual review and appropriate monitoring. Early intervention services coordinate treatment with social, occupational and educational support. Continuing care may include jointly agreed plans for recognising changes, accessing help and maintaining activities that matter to the person (NHS, 2023).

More focused approaches are developing. In the AVATAR2 trial, therapist-guided dialogue with a digital representation of a distressing voice improved voice-related distress compared with usual care at 16 weeks; the differences were not statistically significant at 28 weeks (Garety et al., 2024). NICE permits AVATAR therapy as an NHS option under evidence-generation conditions (NICE, 2024). This qualified support differs from a claim that it is suitable or available for everyone.

Culture, stigma and lived experience

The meanings attached to voices differ across social and cultural settings. An interview study in the USA, India and Ghana found differences in how participants described relationships with their voices (Luhrmann et al., 2015). These findings are informative, but small local samples cannot represent entire countries or establish that culture alone causes the differences.

Spiritual language is not automatically evidence of pathology. Assessment needs to understand cultural context alongside distress, functioning and other relevant concerns, without either dismissing the person's interpretation or treating it as an established external explanation.

Across mental health research, stigma and disclosure concerns can hinder help-seeking (Clement et al., 2015). This broader evidence does not specify every voice hearer's experience. It does support avoiding labels that close down conversation. The varied accounts documented by Woods et al. (2015) also remind us to ask how someone experiences voices rather than assume that one clinical description captures their life.

What researchers still do not understand

Studies differ in how they define voices, ask about them and measure distress. A questionnaire about lifetime experiences may capture something different from an interview about current symptoms. Self-report is essential for studying subjective experience, but is affected by language, memory and the questions researchers choose.

Clinical samples also disproportionately represent people seeking care. Non-clinical studies may recruit people comfortable discussing voices or connected to particular communities. Group comparisons can therefore mix differences in voices with differences in treatment, mood, social circumstances or recruitment (Baumeister et al., 2017).

Cross-sectional associations cannot reliably establish what came first. Laboratory tasks may isolate a perceptual process while leaving out the emotional and interpersonal qualities of everyday voices. Bell et al. (2024) highlight the need for better alignment between the experience being explained and the measures used to investigate it.

Treatment studies introduce further uncertainty: interventions, comparison conditions, outcomes and follow-up periods vary. Symptom reduction, distress and functioning are related but distinct outcomes. An average benefit does not guarantee benefit for an individual, and disagreement between theories remains unresolved.

Understanding before assuming

Hearing voices is an experience that needs interpretation in context. Sometimes it occurs without substantial distress. Sometimes it is part of serious psychological or medical difficulty requiring timely assessment and sustained care. Neither possibility should obscure the other.

Psychology offers useful models and interventions while leaving important questions open. A careful response combines respect for lived experience with attention to health, safety and functioning. For someone seeking help, being listened to is the beginning of assessment, not a substitute for it.

Seeking support: This article is educational, not individual clinical advice. Seek professional assessment for new, distressing or concerning hallucinations. UK readers can contact an urgent GP service or NHS 111. For immediate danger, voices directing harm or sudden confusion, call 999 or attend A&E. Elsewhere, use local urgent or emergency services (NHS, 2025).

References

Baumeister, D., Sedgwick, O., Howes, O., & Peters, E. (2017). Auditory verbal hallucinations and continuum models of psychosis: A systematic review of the healthy voice-hearer literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 51, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.010

Bell, A., Toh, W. L., Allen, P., Cella, M., Jardri, R., Larøi, F., Moseley, P., & Rossell, S. L. (2024). Examining the relationships between cognition and auditory hallucinations: A systematic review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 58(6), 467–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674241235849

Bighelli, I., Salanti, G., Huhn, M., Schneider-Thoma, J., Krause, M., Reitmeir, C., Wallis, S., Schwermann, F., Pitschel-Walz, G., Barbui, C., Furukawa, T. A., & Leucht, S. (2018). Psychological interventions to reduce positive symptoms in schizophrenia: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20577

Birchwood, M., & Chadwick, P. (1997). The omnipotence of voices: Testing the validity of a cognitive model. Psychological Medicine, 27(6), 1345–1353. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291797005552

Brookwell, M. L., Bentall, R. P., & Varese, F. (2013). Externalizing biases and hallucinations in source-monitoring, self-monitoring and signal detection studies: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Medicine, 43(12), 2465–2475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712002760

Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., Morgan, C., Rüsch, N., Brown, J. S. L., & Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000129

Division of Clinical Psychology. (2011). Good practice guidelines on the use of psychological formulation. British Psychological Society. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsrep.2011.rep100

Freeman, D., Sheaves, B., Goodwin, G. M., Yu, L.-M., Nickless, A., Harrison, P. J., Emsley, R., Luik, A. I., Foster, R. G., Wadekar, V., Hinds, C., Gumley, A., Jones, R., Lightman, S., Jones, S., Bentall, R., Kinderman, P., Rowse, G., Brugha, T., … Espie, C. A. (2017). The effects of improving sleep on mental health (OASIS): A randomised controlled trial with mediation analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(10), 749-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30328-0

Garety, P. A., Edwards, C. J., Jafari, H., Emsley, R., Huckvale, M., Rus-Calafell, M., Fornells-Ambrojo, M., Gumley, A., Haddock, G., Bucci, S., McLeod, H. J., McDonnell, J., Clancy, M., Fitzsimmons, M., Ball, H., Montague, A., Xanidis, N., Hardy, A., Craig, T. K. J., & Ward, T. (2024). Digital AVATAR therapy for distressing voices in psychosis: The phase 2/3 AVATAR2 trial. Nature Medicine, 30(12), 3658–3668. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03252-8

Garety, P. A., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., Freeman, D., & Bebbington, P. E. (2001). A cognitive model of the positive symptoms of psychosis. Psychological Medicine, 31(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291701003312

Gibson, L. E., Alloy, L. B., & Ellman, L. M. (2016). Trauma and the psychosis spectrum: A review of symptom specificity and explanatory mechanisms. Clinical Psychology Review, 49, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.08.003

Larøi, F., Sommer, I. E., Blom, J. D., Fernyhough, C., Ffytche, D. H., Hugdahl, K., Johns, L. C., McCarthy-Jones, S., Preti, A., Raballo, A., Slotema, C. W., Stephane, M., & Waters, F. (2012). The characteristic features of auditory verbal hallucinations in clinical and nonclinical groups: State-of-the-art overview and future directions. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(4), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs061

Luhrmann, T. M., Padmavati, R., Tharoor, H., & Osei, A. (2015). Differences in voice-hearing experiences of people with psychosis in the USA, India and Ghana: Interview-based study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 206(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.139048

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014). Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: Prevention and management (Clinical guideline CG178). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178/chapter/recommendations

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2024). Digital health technologies to help manage symptoms of psychosis and prevent relapse in adults and young people: Early value assessment (HealthTech guidance HTG713). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/htg713/chapter/1-Recommendations

NHS. (2023, September 5). Treatment: Psychosis. https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/psychosis/treatment/

NHS. (2025, July 28). Hallucinations and hearing voices. https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/feelings-symptoms-behaviours/feelings-and-symptoms/hallucinations-hearing-voices/

Powers, A. R., III, Mathys, C., & Corlett, P. R. (2017). Pavlovian conditioning-induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors. Science, 357(6351), 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3458

Rodolico, A., Bighelli, I., Avanzato, C., Concerto, C., Cutrufelli, P., Mineo, L., Schneider-Thoma, J., Siafis, S., Signorelli, M. S., Wu, H., Wang, D., Furukawa, T. A., Pitschel-Walz, G., Aguglia, E., & Leucht, S. (2022). Family interventions for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 9(3), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00437-5

Varese, F., Smeets, F., Drukker, M., Lieverse, R., Lataster, T., Viechtbauer, W., Read, J., van Os, J., & Bentall, R. P. (2012). Childhood adversities increase the risk of psychosis: A meta-analysis of patient-control, prospective- and cross-sectional cohort studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(4), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs050

Waters, F., & Fernyhough, C. (2017). Hallucinations: A systematic review of points of similarity and difference across diagnostic classes. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 43(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw132

Woods, A., Jones, N., Alderson-Day, B., Callard, F., & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Experiences of hearing voices: Analysis of a novel phenomenological survey. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00006-1