D Freeman1, H Startup1, G Dunn2, E Černis1, G Wingham3, K Pugh1, J Cordwell3, H Mander3, D Kingdon3. 1. Department of Psychiatry,University of Oxford,Oxford,UK. 2. Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health,University of Manchester,Manchester,UK. 3. Academic Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine,University of Southampton,Southampton,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persecutory delusions are a key psychotic experience. A reasoning style known as 'jumping to conclusions' (JTC) - limited information gathering before reaching certainty in decision making - has been identified as a contributory factor in the occurrence of delusions. The cognitive processes that underpin JTC need to be determined in order to develop effective interventions for delusions. In the current study two alternative perspectives were tested: that JTC partially results from impairment in information-processing capabilities and that JTC is a motivated strategy to avoid uncertainty. METHOD: A group of 123 patients with persistent persecutory delusions completed assessments of JTC (the 60:40 beads task), IQ, working memory, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychiatric symptoms. Patients showing JTC were compared with patients not showing JTC. RESULTS: A total of 30 (24%) patients with delusions showed JTC. There were no differences between patients who did and did not jump to conclusions in overall psychopathology. Patients who jumped to conclusions had poorer working memory performance, lower IQ, lower intolerance of uncertainty and lower levels of worry. Working memory and worry independently predicted the presence of JTC. CONCLUSIONS: Hasty decision making in patients with delusions may partly arise from difficulties in keeping information in mind. Interventions for JTC are likely to benefit from addressing working memory performance, while in vivo techniques for patients with delusions will benefit from limiting the demands on working memory. The study provides little evidence for a contribution to JTC from top-down motivational beliefs about uncertainty.
BACKGROUND: Persecutory delusions are a key psychotic experience. A reasoning style known as 'jumping to conclusions' (JTC) - limited information gathering before reaching certainty in decision making - has been identified as a contributory factor in the occurrence of delusions. The cognitive processes that underpin JTC need to be determined in order to develop effective interventions for delusions. In the current study two alternative perspectives were tested: that JTC partially results from impairment in information-processing capabilities and that JTC is a motivated strategy to avoid uncertainty. METHOD: A group of 123 patients with persistent persecutory delusions completed assessments of JTC (the 60:40 beads task), IQ, working memory, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychiatric symptoms. Patients showing JTC were compared with patients not showing JTC. RESULTS: A total of 30 (24%) patients with delusions showed JTC. There were no differences between patients who did and did not jump to conclusions in overall psychopathology. Patients who jumped to conclusions had poorer working memory performance, lower IQ, lower intolerance of uncertainty and lower levels of worry. Working memory and worry independently predicted the presence of JTC. CONCLUSIONS: Hasty decision making in patients with delusions may partly arise from difficulties in keeping information in mind. Interventions for JTC are likely to benefit from addressing working memory performance, while in vivo techniques for patients with delusions will benefit from limiting the demands on working memory. The study provides little evidence for a contribution to JTC from top-down motivational beliefs about uncertainty.
Authors: Yulia Landa; Kim T Mueser; Katarzyna E Wyka; Erica Shreck; Rachel Jespersen; Michael A Jacobs; Kenneth W Griffin; Mark van der Gaag; Valerie F Reyna; Aaron T Beck; David A Silbersweig; John T Walkup Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Joanna M Fiszdon; David L Roberts; David L Penn; Kee-Hong Choi; Cenk Tek; Jimmy Choi; Morris D Bell Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2016-06-09
Authors: Ana Catalan; Claudia J P Simons; Sonia Bustamante; Nora Olazabal; Eduardo Ruiz; Maider Gonzalez de Artaza; Alberto Penas; Claudio Maruottolo; Claudio Maurottolo; Andrea González; Jim van Os; Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Torres Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel Freeman; Graham Dunn; Robin M Murray; Nicole Evans; Rachel Lister; Angus Antley; Mel Slater; Beata Godlewska; Robert Cornish; Jonathan Williams; Martina Di Simplicio; Artemis Igoumenou; Rudolf Brenneisen; Elizabeth M Tunbridge; Paul J Harrison; Catherine J Harmer; Philip Cowen; Paul D Morrison Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Philippa Garety; Helen Waller; Richard Emsley; Suzanne Jolley; Elizabeth Kuipers; Paul Bebbington; Graham Dunn; David Fowler; Amy Hardy; Daniel Freeman Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Rodolfo Rossi; Stanley Zammit; Katherine S Button; Marcus R Munafò; Glyn Lewis; Anthony S David Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel Freeman; Graham Dunn; Helen Startup; Katherine Pugh; Jacinta Cordwell; Helen Mander; Emma Černis; Gail Wingham; Katherine Shirvell; David Kingdon Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 27.083