Jumping to conclusions is associated with paranoia but not general suspiciousness: a comparison of two versions of the probabilistic reasoning paradigm.

IF 3.6 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Schizophrenia Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-10-18 DOI:10.1155/2012/384039
Steffen Moritz, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Tania M Lincoln
{"title":"Jumping to conclusions is associated with paranoia but not general suspiciousness: a comparison of two versions of the probabilistic reasoning paradigm.","authors":"Steffen Moritz, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Tania M Lincoln","doi":"10.1155/2012/384039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Theoretical models ascribe jumping to conclusions (JTCs) a prominent role in the pathogenesis of paranoia. While many earlier studies corroborated this account, some newer investigations have found no or only small associations of the JTC bias with paranoid symptoms. The present study examined whether these inconsistencies in part reflect methodological differences across studies. The study was built upon the psychometric high-risk paradigm. A total of 1899 subjects from the general population took part in an online survey and were administered the Paranoia Checklist as well as one of two different variants of the probabilistic reasoning task: one variant with a traditional instruction (a) and one novel variant that combines probability estimates with decision judgments (b). Factor analysis of the Paranoia Checklist yielded an unspecific suspiciousness factor and a psychotic paranoia factor. The latter was significantly associated with scores indicating hasty decision making. Subjects scoring two standard deviations above the mean of the Paranoia Checklist showed an abnormal data-gathering style relative to subjects with normal scores. Findings suggest that the so-called decision threshold parameter is more sensitive than the conventional JTC index. For future research the specific contents of paranoid beliefs deserve more consideration in the investigation of decision making in schizophrenia as JTC seems to be associated with core psychosis-prone features of paranoia only.</p>","PeriodicalId":45388,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/384039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theoretical models ascribe jumping to conclusions (JTCs) a prominent role in the pathogenesis of paranoia. While many earlier studies corroborated this account, some newer investigations have found no or only small associations of the JTC bias with paranoid symptoms. The present study examined whether these inconsistencies in part reflect methodological differences across studies. The study was built upon the psychometric high-risk paradigm. A total of 1899 subjects from the general population took part in an online survey and were administered the Paranoia Checklist as well as one of two different variants of the probabilistic reasoning task: one variant with a traditional instruction (a) and one novel variant that combines probability estimates with decision judgments (b). Factor analysis of the Paranoia Checklist yielded an unspecific suspiciousness factor and a psychotic paranoia factor. The latter was significantly associated with scores indicating hasty decision making. Subjects scoring two standard deviations above the mean of the Paranoia Checklist showed an abnormal data-gathering style relative to subjects with normal scores. Findings suggest that the so-called decision threshold parameter is more sensitive than the conventional JTC index. For future research the specific contents of paranoid beliefs deserve more consideration in the investigation of decision making in schizophrenia as JTC seems to be associated with core psychosis-prone features of paranoia only.

妄下结论与偏执狂有关,但与一般多疑症无关:两种版本概率推理范式的比较。
理论模型认为,妄下结论(JTC)在妄想症的发病机制中起着重要作用。虽然许多早期研究证实了这一说法,但一些较新的调查发现,JTC偏差与偏执症状没有关联或关联很小。本研究探讨了这些不一致是否部分反映了不同研究在方法上的差异。本研究以心理测量高风险范式为基础。共有 1899 名来自普通人群的受试者参加了在线调查,并接受了妄想症检查表以及概率推理任务两种不同变体中的一种:一种是传统指令变体(a),另一种是将概率估计与决策判断相结合的新型变体(b)。妄想症检查表的因子分析得出了一个非特异性多疑因子和一个精神病性妄想因子。后者与表明决策草率的得分有明显关联。妄想症检查表得分高于平均值两个标准差的受试者与得分正常的受试者相比,表现出异常的数据收集风格。研究结果表明,所谓的决策阈值参数比传统的 JTC 指数更加敏感。在未来的研究中,由于 JTC 似乎只与偏执狂的核心精神病易发特征相关,因此在研究精神分裂症患者的决策制定时,应更多地考虑偏执信念的具体内容。
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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Schizophrenia Research and Treatment is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to all aspects of schizophrenia.
×
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