Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T15:47:19.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jumping to conclusions in delusions: fact or fallacy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

S Rossell,
A O'Regan and
N Joshua
S Rossell
Affiliation:
Mental Health Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
A O'Regan
Affiliation:
Mental Health Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
N Joshua
Affiliation:
Mental Health Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2006, pp. 269
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Background:

A jumping-to-conclusions (JTC) bias refers to the gathering of minimal data when making probabilistic judgments and has been associated with delusion formation. Approximately 50% of patients who experience delusions have previously been shown to have a JTC bias. However, the literature is fraught with methodological differences. This study sought to address one of these differences by examining state and trait delusions using large groups of patients with psychosis.

Methods:

Three matched groups (patients with bipolar disorder, patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls) completed the standard beads probabilistic reasoning task and two emotional variants, which examined reasoning using personality and health traits. For each of the three tasks, two probability ratios were used, 85:15 and 60:40. JTC was defined, using the Institute of Psychiatry, London, criteria, as requiring two or less draws. Patients were divided into those with state and trait delusions.

Results:

On the beads 85:15 task, only 4% of patients with schizophrenia and 0% of patients with bipolar disorder showed a JTC bias. The emotional variants produced a similar degree of JTC bias. The 60:40 ratio resulted in an even smaller proportion of JTC. There were no state-trait differences.

Discussion:

Two groups of Australian patients with psychosis (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) did not show a JTC bias. The authors discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy of these findings with the literature. These include the following: are Australians more indecisive or cautious, how state and trait delusions influence performance, and methodological problems with the task itself.