Y M Linney1, E R Peters, P Ayton. 1. Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to test whether individuals high in delusional ideation exhibit a reasoning bias on tasks involving hypothesis testing and probability judgments. On the basis of previous findings (e.g. Garety, Hemsley & Wessely, 1991), it was predicted that individuals high in delusional ideation would exhibit a 'jump-to-conclusions' style of reasoning and would be less sensitive to the effects of random variation, in comparison to individuals low in delusional ideation. DESIGN: A non-randomized matched groups design was employed enabling the performance of the delusion prone individuals to be compared to that of a control group. METHOD: Forty individuals, selected from the normal population, were divided into groups high and low in delusional ideation, according to their scores on the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (Peters, Day & Garety, 1996), and were compared on two tasks involving probability judgment and two tasks involving hypothesis testing. RESULTS: Although no significant differences were found on tasks involving hypothesis testing and the aggregation of probabilistic information, it was found that individuals high in delusional ideation had a 'jump-to-conclusions' style of data gathering and were less sensitive to the effects of random variation, in comparison to individuals low in delusional ideation. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although individuals high in delusional ideation were not found to have a general reasoning bias, some evidence of a more specific bias was found. It is thought that these aberrations may play some role in delusion formation in schizophrenia and paranoia.
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to test whether individuals high in delusional ideation exhibit a reasoning bias on tasks involving hypothesis testing and probability judgments. On the basis of previous findings (e.g. Garety, Hemsley & Wessely, 1991), it was predicted that individuals high in delusional ideation would exhibit a 'jump-to-conclusions' style of reasoning and would be less sensitive to the effects of random variation, in comparison to individuals low in delusional ideation. DESIGN: A non-randomized matched groups design was employed enabling the performance of the delusion prone individuals to be compared to that of a control group. METHOD: Forty individuals, selected from the normal population, were divided into groups high and low in delusional ideation, according to their scores on the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (Peters, Day & Garety, 1996), and were compared on two tasks involving probability judgment and two tasks involving hypothesis testing. RESULTS: Although no significant differences were found on tasks involving hypothesis testing and the aggregation of probabilistic information, it was found that individuals high in delusional ideation had a 'jump-to-conclusions' style of data gathering and were less sensitive to the effects of random variation, in comparison to individuals low in delusional ideation. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although individuals high in delusional ideation were not found to have a general reasoning bias, some evidence of a more specific bias was found. It is thought that these aberrations may play some role in delusion formation in schizophrenia and paranoia.
Authors: Rick P F Wolthusen; Garth Coombs; Emily A Boeke; Stefan Ehrlich; Stephanie N DeCross; Shahin Nasr; Daphne J Holt Journal: Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging Date: 2017-07-13
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: James H Cole; Maria Laura Filippetti; Matthew P G Allin; Muriel Walshe; Kie Woo Nam; Boris A Gutman; Robin M Murray; Larry Rifkin; Paul M Thompson; Chiara Nosarti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.240