Jumping to conclusions in the less-delusion-prone? Further evidence from a more reliable beads task

•Is delusion-proneness associated with the jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias?•A reliable version of the ‘beads task’ was used to clarify this relationship.•People scoring high on delusion-proneness requested more evidence (less JTC).•Increased odds-literacy did not drive delusion-proneness or JTC.•T...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Consciousness and cognition 2020-08, Vol.83, p.102956-102956, Article 102956
Hauptverfasser: McLean, Benjamin F., Balzan, Ryan P., Mattiske, Julie K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 102956
container_issue
container_start_page 102956
container_title Consciousness and cognition
container_volume 83
creator McLean, Benjamin F.
Balzan, Ryan P.
Mattiske, Julie K.
description •Is delusion-proneness associated with the jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias?•A reliable version of the ‘beads task’ was used to clarify this relationship.•People scoring high on delusion-proneness requested more evidence (less JTC).•Increased odds-literacy did not drive delusion-proneness or JTC.•The JTC bias may not contribute to non-clinical delusion-proneness. A single meta-analysis has found that healthy people with higher delusion-proneness tend to gather less information (i.e., make fewer draws to decision, or DTD) on the beads task, although the findings of contributing studies were mixed, and the pooled effect size was small. However, using a new and more reliable “distractor sequences” beads task, we recently found a positive relationship between delusion-proneness and DTD in a healthy sample. In the current study, we re-tested this relationship in a new sample, and tested the possibility that the relationship is driven by participant’s ability to understand and use odds or likelihood information (“odds literacy”). Healthy participants (N = 167) completed the distractor sequences beads task, the Peters Delusions Inventory (PDI) which measures delusion-proneness, a measure of odds literacy, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale. PDI and DTD were positively correlated, and comparing PDI quartiles on DTD confirmed a statistically significant trend of increasing DTD with PDI quartile. Odds literacy was positively rather than negatively associated with both DTD and PDI. Anxiety was positively correlated with PDI and DTD. We replicated our earlier finding that DTD and delusion-proneness were positively related in a non-clinical sample, but found that increased odds-literacy did not drive lower PDI and DTD, and hence did not explain their covariance. It is possible however that anxiety and co-occurring risk aversion drive increased delusion-proneness and information-gathering, potentially accounting for the positive relationship between PDI and DTD.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.concog.2020.102956
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2410362791</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1053810019304891</els_id><sourcerecordid>2505722043</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-1583af4660c1ee648d4e49a1d19b35c3a1ad290a02c0c3873ddd1e08d5ff9f2f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhiMEEqXwDxgssbCknO04HwsIVZQPVWKB2XLtS3FJ7GInlfj3JAoTA9Od7t579d6TJJcUFhRofrNbaO-03y4YsHHEKpEfJTMKFaSMF_nx2AuelhTgNDmLcQcAZZGJWaJf-nZv3ZZ0nowmTR-td5FYR7oPJA3GmBqcpuk-eId3ZNWHYRcIHqxBp5HUwbdEkdYHJAEbqzYNkg0qE0mn4ud5clKrJuLFb50n76uHt-VTun59fF7er1PN86JLqSi5qrM8B00R86w0GWaVooZWGy40V1QZVoECpkHzsuDGGIpQGlHXVc1qPk-uJ98h51ePsZOtjRqbRjn0fZQso8BzVlR0kF79ke58H9yQTjIBomAMMj6oskmlg48xYC33wbYqfEsKciQvd3IiL0fyciI_nN1OZzg8e7AYZNR2BGVsQN1J4-3_Bj-14I4x</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2505722043</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Jumping to conclusions in the less-delusion-prone? Further evidence from a more reliable beads task</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>McLean, Benjamin F. ; Balzan, Ryan P. ; Mattiske, Julie K.</creator><creatorcontrib>McLean, Benjamin F. ; Balzan, Ryan P. ; Mattiske, Julie K.</creatorcontrib><description>•Is delusion-proneness associated with the jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias?•A reliable version of the ‘beads task’ was used to clarify this relationship.•People scoring high on delusion-proneness requested more evidence (less JTC).•Increased odds-literacy did not drive delusion-proneness or JTC.•The JTC bias may not contribute to non-clinical delusion-proneness. A single meta-analysis has found that healthy people with higher delusion-proneness tend to gather less information (i.e., make fewer draws to decision, or DTD) on the beads task, although the findings of contributing studies were mixed, and the pooled effect size was small. However, using a new and more reliable “distractor sequences” beads task, we recently found a positive relationship between delusion-proneness and DTD in a healthy sample. In the current study, we re-tested this relationship in a new sample, and tested the possibility that the relationship is driven by participant’s ability to understand and use odds or likelihood information (“odds literacy”). Healthy participants (N = 167) completed the distractor sequences beads task, the Peters Delusions Inventory (PDI) which measures delusion-proneness, a measure of odds literacy, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale. PDI and DTD were positively correlated, and comparing PDI quartiles on DTD confirmed a statistically significant trend of increasing DTD with PDI quartile. Odds literacy was positively rather than negatively associated with both DTD and PDI. Anxiety was positively correlated with PDI and DTD. We replicated our earlier finding that DTD and delusion-proneness were positively related in a non-clinical sample, but found that increased odds-literacy did not drive lower PDI and DTD, and hence did not explain their covariance. It is possible however that anxiety and co-occurring risk aversion drive increased delusion-proneness and information-gathering, potentially accounting for the positive relationship between PDI and DTD.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-8100</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1090-2376</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2020.102956</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Diego: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Anxiety ; Aversion ; Beads task ; Decision making ; Delusion-proneness ; Delusions ; JTC ; Jumping to conclusions ; Literacy ; Mental task performance ; Odds literacy ; Psychosis ; Statistical analysis ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Consciousness and cognition, 2020-08, Vol.83, p.102956-102956, Article 102956</ispartof><rights>2020</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Aug 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-1583af4660c1ee648d4e49a1d19b35c3a1ad290a02c0c3873ddd1e08d5ff9f2f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-1583af4660c1ee648d4e49a1d19b35c3a1ad290a02c0c3873ddd1e08d5ff9f2f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810019304891$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McLean, Benjamin F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balzan, Ryan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattiske, Julie K.</creatorcontrib><title>Jumping to conclusions in the less-delusion-prone? Further evidence from a more reliable beads task</title><title>Consciousness and cognition</title><description>•Is delusion-proneness associated with the jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias?•A reliable version of the ‘beads task’ was used to clarify this relationship.•People scoring high on delusion-proneness requested more evidence (less JTC).•Increased odds-literacy did not drive delusion-proneness or JTC.•The JTC bias may not contribute to non-clinical delusion-proneness. A single meta-analysis has found that healthy people with higher delusion-proneness tend to gather less information (i.e., make fewer draws to decision, or DTD) on the beads task, although the findings of contributing studies were mixed, and the pooled effect size was small. However, using a new and more reliable “distractor sequences” beads task, we recently found a positive relationship between delusion-proneness and DTD in a healthy sample. In the current study, we re-tested this relationship in a new sample, and tested the possibility that the relationship is driven by participant’s ability to understand and use odds or likelihood information (“odds literacy”). Healthy participants (N = 167) completed the distractor sequences beads task, the Peters Delusions Inventory (PDI) which measures delusion-proneness, a measure of odds literacy, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale. PDI and DTD were positively correlated, and comparing PDI quartiles on DTD confirmed a statistically significant trend of increasing DTD with PDI quartile. Odds literacy was positively rather than negatively associated with both DTD and PDI. Anxiety was positively correlated with PDI and DTD. We replicated our earlier finding that DTD and delusion-proneness were positively related in a non-clinical sample, but found that increased odds-literacy did not drive lower PDI and DTD, and hence did not explain their covariance. It is possible however that anxiety and co-occurring risk aversion drive increased delusion-proneness and information-gathering, potentially accounting for the positive relationship between PDI and DTD.</description><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Aversion</subject><subject>Beads task</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Delusion-proneness</subject><subject>Delusions</subject><subject>JTC</subject><subject>Jumping to conclusions</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Mental task performance</subject><subject>Odds literacy</subject><subject>Psychosis</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1053-8100</issn><issn>1090-2376</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAQhiMEEqXwDxgssbCknO04HwsIVZQPVWKB2XLtS3FJ7GInlfj3JAoTA9Od7t579d6TJJcUFhRofrNbaO-03y4YsHHEKpEfJTMKFaSMF_nx2AuelhTgNDmLcQcAZZGJWaJf-nZv3ZZ0nowmTR-td5FYR7oPJA3GmBqcpuk-eId3ZNWHYRcIHqxBp5HUwbdEkdYHJAEbqzYNkg0qE0mn4ud5clKrJuLFb50n76uHt-VTun59fF7er1PN86JLqSi5qrM8B00R86w0GWaVooZWGy40V1QZVoECpkHzsuDGGIpQGlHXVc1qPk-uJ98h51ePsZOtjRqbRjn0fZQso8BzVlR0kF79ke58H9yQTjIBomAMMj6oskmlg48xYC33wbYqfEsKciQvd3IiL0fyciI_nN1OZzg8e7AYZNR2BGVsQN1J4-3_Bj-14I4x</recordid><startdate>202008</startdate><enddate>202008</enddate><creator>McLean, Benjamin F.</creator><creator>Balzan, Ryan P.</creator><creator>Mattiske, Julie K.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202008</creationdate><title>Jumping to conclusions in the less-delusion-prone? Further evidence from a more reliable beads task</title><author>McLean, Benjamin F. ; Balzan, Ryan P. ; Mattiske, Julie K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-1583af4660c1ee648d4e49a1d19b35c3a1ad290a02c0c3873ddd1e08d5ff9f2f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Aversion</topic><topic>Beads task</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Delusion-proneness</topic><topic>Delusions</topic><topic>JTC</topic><topic>Jumping to conclusions</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Mental task performance</topic><topic>Odds literacy</topic><topic>Psychosis</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McLean, Benjamin F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balzan, Ryan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattiske, Julie K.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Consciousness and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McLean, Benjamin F.</au><au>Balzan, Ryan P.</au><au>Mattiske, Julie K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Jumping to conclusions in the less-delusion-prone? Further evidence from a more reliable beads task</atitle><jtitle>Consciousness and cognition</jtitle><date>2020-08</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>83</volume><spage>102956</spage><epage>102956</epage><pages>102956-102956</pages><artnum>102956</artnum><issn>1053-8100</issn><eissn>1090-2376</eissn><abstract>•Is delusion-proneness associated with the jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias?•A reliable version of the ‘beads task’ was used to clarify this relationship.•People scoring high on delusion-proneness requested more evidence (less JTC).•Increased odds-literacy did not drive delusion-proneness or JTC.•The JTC bias may not contribute to non-clinical delusion-proneness. A single meta-analysis has found that healthy people with higher delusion-proneness tend to gather less information (i.e., make fewer draws to decision, or DTD) on the beads task, although the findings of contributing studies were mixed, and the pooled effect size was small. However, using a new and more reliable “distractor sequences” beads task, we recently found a positive relationship between delusion-proneness and DTD in a healthy sample. In the current study, we re-tested this relationship in a new sample, and tested the possibility that the relationship is driven by participant’s ability to understand and use odds or likelihood information (“odds literacy”). Healthy participants (N = 167) completed the distractor sequences beads task, the Peters Delusions Inventory (PDI) which measures delusion-proneness, a measure of odds literacy, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale. PDI and DTD were positively correlated, and comparing PDI quartiles on DTD confirmed a statistically significant trend of increasing DTD with PDI quartile. Odds literacy was positively rather than negatively associated with both DTD and PDI. Anxiety was positively correlated with PDI and DTD. We replicated our earlier finding that DTD and delusion-proneness were positively related in a non-clinical sample, but found that increased odds-literacy did not drive lower PDI and DTD, and hence did not explain their covariance. It is possible however that anxiety and co-occurring risk aversion drive increased delusion-proneness and information-gathering, potentially accounting for the positive relationship between PDI and DTD.</abstract><cop>San Diego</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.concog.2020.102956</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-8100
ispartof Consciousness and cognition, 2020-08, Vol.83, p.102956-102956, Article 102956
issn 1053-8100
1090-2376
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2410362791
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Anxiety
Aversion
Beads task
Decision making
Delusion-proneness
Delusions
JTC
Jumping to conclusions
Literacy
Mental task performance
Odds literacy
Psychosis
Statistical analysis
Systematic review
title Jumping to conclusions in the less-delusion-prone? Further evidence from a more reliable beads task
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T12%3A04%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Jumping%20to%20conclusions%20in%20the%20less-delusion-prone?%20Further%20evidence%20from%20a%20more%20reliable%20beads%20task&rft.jtitle=Consciousness%20and%20cognition&rft.au=McLean,%20Benjamin%20F.&rft.date=2020-08&rft.volume=83&rft.spage=102956&rft.epage=102956&rft.pages=102956-102956&rft.artnum=102956&rft.issn=1053-8100&rft.eissn=1090-2376&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.concog.2020.102956&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2505722043%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2505722043&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1053810019304891&rfr_iscdi=true