Paranoid and teleological thinking give rise to distinct social hallucinations in vision

Santiago Castiello, Joan Danielle K. Ongchoco, Benjamin van Buren, Brian J. Scholl, Philip R. Corlett
{"title":"Paranoid and teleological thinking give rise to distinct social hallucinations in vision","authors":"Santiago Castiello, Joan Danielle K. Ongchoco, Benjamin van Buren, Brian J. Scholl, Philip R. Corlett","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00163-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paranoia (believing others intend harm) and excess teleological thinking (ascribing too much purpose) are non-consensual beliefs about agents. Human vision rapidly detects agents and their intentions. Might paranoia and teleology have roots in visual perception? Using displays that evoke the impression that one disc (‘wolf’) is chasing another (‘sheep’), we find that paranoia and teleology involve perceiving chasing when there is none (studies 1 and 2) — errors we characterize as social hallucinations. When asked to identify the wolf or the sheep (studies 3, 4a, and 4b), we find high-paranoia participants struggled to identify sheep, while high-teleology participants were impaired at identifying wolves — both despite high-confidence. Both types of errors correlated with hallucinatory percepts in the real world. Although paranoia and teleology both involve excess perception of agency, the current results collectively suggest a perceptual distinction between the two, perhaps with clinical import. When asked to judge if a chase was present in a visual display of moving discs, people with higher paranoia and teleological thinking were more likely to perceive a chase in its absence. They were also worse at detecting the chaser and the chased, yet highly confident when there was no chase.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00163-9.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00163-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Paranoia (believing others intend harm) and excess teleological thinking (ascribing too much purpose) are non-consensual beliefs about agents. Human vision rapidly detects agents and their intentions. Might paranoia and teleology have roots in visual perception? Using displays that evoke the impression that one disc (‘wolf’) is chasing another (‘sheep’), we find that paranoia and teleology involve perceiving chasing when there is none (studies 1 and 2) — errors we characterize as social hallucinations. When asked to identify the wolf or the sheep (studies 3, 4a, and 4b), we find high-paranoia participants struggled to identify sheep, while high-teleology participants were impaired at identifying wolves — both despite high-confidence. Both types of errors correlated with hallucinatory percepts in the real world. Although paranoia and teleology both involve excess perception of agency, the current results collectively suggest a perceptual distinction between the two, perhaps with clinical import. When asked to judge if a chase was present in a visual display of moving discs, people with higher paranoia and teleological thinking were more likely to perceive a chase in its absence. They were also worse at detecting the chaser and the chased, yet highly confident when there was no chase.

Abstract Image

偏执思维和目的论思维在视觉上产生独特的社会幻觉
偏执狂(认为他人意图伤害自己)和过度目的论思维(赋予过多目的)都是对行为主体的非共识信念。人类的视觉可以迅速检测到行为主体及其意图。妄想症和目的论是否可能源于视觉感知?我们发现,妄想症和目的论涉及在没有追逐的情况下感知到追逐(研究 1 和 2)--我们把这种错误称为社会幻觉。当被要求辨认狼或羊(研究 3、4a 和 4b)时,我们发现偏执狂程度高的参与者很难辨认出羊,而目的论程度高的参与者在辨认狼时也有障碍--尽管两者都很自信。这两种错误都与现实世界中的幻觉相关。虽然偏执狂和目的论都涉及对代理的过度感知,但目前的结果共同表明两者之间存在感知上的区别,或许具有临床意义。当被要求判断移动圆盘的视觉显示中是否存在追逐时,偏执和目的论思维较强的人更有可能在没有追逐的情况下感知到追逐。他们发现追逐者和被追逐者的能力也较差,但在没有追逐时却非常自信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信