论精神病患者妄下结论的多因性

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Steffen Moritz , Lara Wille , Anja S. Göritz , Tana Gabbert , Rose Doherty , Ryan Balzan , Jakob Scheunemann
{"title":"论精神病患者妄下结论的多因性","authors":"Steffen Moritz ,&nbsp;Lara Wille ,&nbsp;Anja S. Göritz ,&nbsp;Tana Gabbert ,&nbsp;Rose Doherty ,&nbsp;Ryan Balzan ,&nbsp;Jakob Scheunemann","doi":"10.1016/j.jbtep.2025.102057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>Jumping to conclusions (JTC) is the most widely researched cognitive bias in schizophrenia. Notwithstanding meta-analyses demonstrating a higher level of JTC across the psychosis spectrum, important research questions remain unanswered. First, whether JTC is a primary process or in part an epiphenomenon reflecting contributions of other variables is still unresolved, which may explain why interventions targeting cognitive biases are effective on positive symptoms but less so on reducing JTC. Secondly, the beads task, the traditional procedure to capture JTC, is a complex procedure prone to misunderstanding and vulnerable to inattentive and careless responding. In this study, we tested a video assessment of the beads task aiming to reduce errors due to misunderstanding and to gain more insight into the processes contributing to JTC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A sample of 801 participants from the general population was divided into various levels of paranoid ideation, based on cut-off criteria. The newly developed video JTC task, which is available at no cost at <span><span>https://clinical-neuropsychology.de/jtc/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, was presented online, as were the Revised Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) and other psychological scales that served to separate individuals scoring high versus low on paranoia.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>As hypothesized, participants scoring high on both the ideas of social reference and persecution subscales of the R-GPTS showed more JTC than those with lower scores. Yet, a large number of participants (24 %) made illogical responses or showed signs of careless performance. Important contributors to JTC were lack of motivation, skipping some of the instructions, and speeding through the trials. Yet, significant differences remained when these influences were accounted for with matched samples.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While the newly developed video task was able to confirm elevated JTC in individuals scoring higher on paranoid ideation, core problems seen in prior versions of the beads task remain. Researchers are advised to develop alternative tests, preferably ones that allow repeated measurement. Our results indicate that JTC is a multi-causal bias that is unlikely to be explained by a single cognitive or psychopathological process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"89 ","pages":"Article 102057"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the multi-causal nature of jumping to conclusions in psychosis\",\"authors\":\"Steffen Moritz ,&nbsp;Lara Wille ,&nbsp;Anja S. Göritz ,&nbsp;Tana Gabbert ,&nbsp;Rose Doherty ,&nbsp;Ryan Balzan ,&nbsp;Jakob Scheunemann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbtep.2025.102057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>Jumping to conclusions (JTC) is the most widely researched cognitive bias in schizophrenia. Notwithstanding meta-analyses demonstrating a higher level of JTC across the psychosis spectrum, important research questions remain unanswered. First, whether JTC is a primary process or in part an epiphenomenon reflecting contributions of other variables is still unresolved, which may explain why interventions targeting cognitive biases are effective on positive symptoms but less so on reducing JTC. Secondly, the beads task, the traditional procedure to capture JTC, is a complex procedure prone to misunderstanding and vulnerable to inattentive and careless responding. In this study, we tested a video assessment of the beads task aiming to reduce errors due to misunderstanding and to gain more insight into the processes contributing to JTC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A sample of 801 participants from the general population was divided into various levels of paranoid ideation, based on cut-off criteria. The newly developed video JTC task, which is available at no cost at <span><span>https://clinical-neuropsychology.de/jtc/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>, was presented online, as were the Revised Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) and other psychological scales that served to separate individuals scoring high versus low on paranoia.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>As hypothesized, participants scoring high on both the ideas of social reference and persecution subscales of the R-GPTS showed more JTC than those with lower scores. Yet, a large number of participants (24 %) made illogical responses or showed signs of careless performance. Important contributors to JTC were lack of motivation, skipping some of the instructions, and speeding through the trials. Yet, significant differences remained when these influences were accounted for with matched samples.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While the newly developed video task was able to confirm elevated JTC in individuals scoring higher on paranoid ideation, core problems seen in prior versions of the beads task remain. Researchers are advised to develop alternative tests, preferably ones that allow repeated measurement. Our results indicate that JTC is a multi-causal bias that is unlikely to be explained by a single cognitive or psychopathological process.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48198,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"89 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102057\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791625000412\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791625000412","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的跳跃性结论(JTC)是精神分裂症中研究最广泛的认知偏差。尽管荟萃分析表明,在精神病谱系中,JTC的水平更高,但重要的研究问题仍未得到解答。首先,JTC是主要过程还是部分反映其他变量贡献的副现象仍未解决,这可能解释了为什么针对认知偏见的干预措施对阳性症状有效,但对减少JTC效果较差。其次,传统的捕获JTC的程序——珠子任务是一个复杂的程序,容易产生误解,容易出现反应不专心和粗心的情况。在这项研究中,我们测试了一个珠子任务的视频评估,旨在减少由于误解而导致的错误,并对导致JTC的过程有更多的了解。方法从普通人群中抽取801名受试者,根据截止标准将其分为不同程度的偏执观念。新开发的视频JTC任务(可在https://clinical-neuropsychology.de/jtc/免费获得)与修订后的Green等人一起在网上展示。偏执思维量表(R-GPTS)和其他心理量表用来区分偏执得分高低的个体。结果与假设一致,在R-GPTS的社会参照和迫害分量表中得分较高的参与者比得分较低的参与者表现出更多的JTC。然而,大量参与者(24%)做出了不合逻辑的回答或表现出粗心大意的迹象。JTC的重要贡献者是缺乏动力,跳过一些说明,以及通过试验的速度过快。然而,当这些影响与匹配样本相匹配时,显著差异仍然存在。结论:虽然新开发的视频任务能够证实在偏执意念得分较高的个体中JTC升高,但在先前版本的珠子任务中看到的核心问题仍然存在。建议研究人员开发替代测试,最好是允许重复测量的测试。我们的研究结果表明,JTC是一种多原因的偏倚,不太可能由单一的认知或精神病理过程来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the multi-causal nature of jumping to conclusions in psychosis

Background and objectives

Jumping to conclusions (JTC) is the most widely researched cognitive bias in schizophrenia. Notwithstanding meta-analyses demonstrating a higher level of JTC across the psychosis spectrum, important research questions remain unanswered. First, whether JTC is a primary process or in part an epiphenomenon reflecting contributions of other variables is still unresolved, which may explain why interventions targeting cognitive biases are effective on positive symptoms but less so on reducing JTC. Secondly, the beads task, the traditional procedure to capture JTC, is a complex procedure prone to misunderstanding and vulnerable to inattentive and careless responding. In this study, we tested a video assessment of the beads task aiming to reduce errors due to misunderstanding and to gain more insight into the processes contributing to JTC.

Methods

A sample of 801 participants from the general population was divided into various levels of paranoid ideation, based on cut-off criteria. The newly developed video JTC task, which is available at no cost at https://clinical-neuropsychology.de/jtc/, was presented online, as were the Revised Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) and other psychological scales that served to separate individuals scoring high versus low on paranoia.

Results

As hypothesized, participants scoring high on both the ideas of social reference and persecution subscales of the R-GPTS showed more JTC than those with lower scores. Yet, a large number of participants (24 %) made illogical responses or showed signs of careless performance. Important contributors to JTC were lack of motivation, skipping some of the instructions, and speeding through the trials. Yet, significant differences remained when these influences were accounted for with matched samples.

Conclusions

While the newly developed video task was able to confirm elevated JTC in individuals scoring higher on paranoid ideation, core problems seen in prior versions of the beads task remain. Researchers are advised to develop alternative tests, preferably ones that allow repeated measurement. Our results indicate that JTC is a multi-causal bias that is unlikely to be explained by a single cognitive or psychopathological process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信