Belief-bias reasoning in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background and Objectives: It has been proposed that people with delusions have difficulty inhibiting beliefs (i.e., “doxastic inhibition”) so as to reason about them as if they might not be true. We used a continuity approach to test this proposal in non-clinical adults scoring high and low in psychometrically assessed delusion-proneness. High delusion-prone individuals were expected to show greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on “conflict” items of a “belief-bias” reasoning task (i.e. when required to reason logically about statements that conflicted with reality), but not on “non-conflict” items. 

Methods: Twenty high delusion-prone and twenty low delusion-prone participants (according to the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory) completed a belief-bias reasoning task and tests of IQ, working memory and general inhibition (Excluded Letter Fluency, Stroop and Hayling Sentence Completion).

Results: High delusion-prone individuals showed greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on the Stroop and Excluded Letter Fluency tests of inhibition, but no greater difficulty on the conflict versus non-conflict items of the belief-bias task. They did, however, make significantly more errors overall on the belief-bias task, despite controlling for IQ, working memory and general inhibitory control. 

Limitations: The study had a relatively small sample size and used non-clinical participants to test a theory of cognitive processing in individuals with clinically diagnosed delusions. 

Conclusions: Results failed to support a role for doxastic inhibitory failure in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals. These individuals did, however, show difficulty with conditional reasoning about statements that may or may not conflict with reality, independent of any general cognitive or inhibitory deficits.

LanguageEnglish
Pages71-78
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Volume56
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2017

Fingerprint

Delusions
Short-Term Memory
Belief Bias
Sample Size

Keywords

  • delusion-proneness
  • doxastic
  • inhibition
  • two-factor
  • belief-bias
  • reasoning

Cite this

@article{a354204118294e91ab7537225507f6e4,
title = "Belief-bias reasoning in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: It has been proposed that people with delusions have difficulty inhibiting beliefs (i.e., “doxastic inhibition”) so as to reason about them as if they might not be true. We used a continuity approach to test this proposal in non-clinical adults scoring high and low in psychometrically assessed delusion-proneness. High delusion-prone individuals were expected to show greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on “conflict” items of a “belief-bias” reasoning task (i.e. when required to reason logically about statements that conflicted with reality), but not on “non-conflict” items. Methods: Twenty high delusion-prone and twenty low delusion-prone participants (according to the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory) completed a belief-bias reasoning task and tests of IQ, working memory and general inhibition (Excluded Letter Fluency, Stroop and Hayling Sentence Completion).Results: High delusion-prone individuals showed greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on the Stroop and Excluded Letter Fluency tests of inhibition, but no greater difficulty on the conflict versus non-conflict items of the belief-bias task. They did, however, make significantly more errors overall on the belief-bias task, despite controlling for IQ, working memory and general inhibitory control. Limitations: The study had a relatively small sample size and used non-clinical participants to test a theory of cognitive processing in individuals with clinically diagnosed delusions. Conclusions: Results failed to support a role for doxastic inhibitory failure in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals. These individuals did, however, show difficulty with conditional reasoning about statements that may or may not conflict with reality, independent of any general cognitive or inhibitory deficits.",
keywords = "delusion-proneness, doxastic, inhibition, two-factor, belief-bias, reasoning",
author = "T. Anandakumar and E. Connaughton and M. Coltheart and R. Langdon",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jbtep.2017.02.005",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "71--78",
journal = "Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry",
issn = "0005-7916",
publisher = "Pergamon-Elsevier Science",

}

Belief-bias reasoning in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals. / Anandakumar, T.; Connaughton, E.; Coltheart, M.; Langdon, R.

In: Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, Vol. 56, 01.09.2017, p. 71-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Belief-bias reasoning in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals

AU - Anandakumar, T.

AU - Connaughton, E.

AU - Coltheart, M.

AU - Langdon, R.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Background and Objectives: It has been proposed that people with delusions have difficulty inhibiting beliefs (i.e., “doxastic inhibition”) so as to reason about them as if they might not be true. We used a continuity approach to test this proposal in non-clinical adults scoring high and low in psychometrically assessed delusion-proneness. High delusion-prone individuals were expected to show greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on “conflict” items of a “belief-bias” reasoning task (i.e. when required to reason logically about statements that conflicted with reality), but not on “non-conflict” items. Methods: Twenty high delusion-prone and twenty low delusion-prone participants (according to the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory) completed a belief-bias reasoning task and tests of IQ, working memory and general inhibition (Excluded Letter Fluency, Stroop and Hayling Sentence Completion).Results: High delusion-prone individuals showed greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on the Stroop and Excluded Letter Fluency tests of inhibition, but no greater difficulty on the conflict versus non-conflict items of the belief-bias task. They did, however, make significantly more errors overall on the belief-bias task, despite controlling for IQ, working memory and general inhibitory control. Limitations: The study had a relatively small sample size and used non-clinical participants to test a theory of cognitive processing in individuals with clinically diagnosed delusions. Conclusions: Results failed to support a role for doxastic inhibitory failure in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals. These individuals did, however, show difficulty with conditional reasoning about statements that may or may not conflict with reality, independent of any general cognitive or inhibitory deficits.

AB - Background and Objectives: It has been proposed that people with delusions have difficulty inhibiting beliefs (i.e., “doxastic inhibition”) so as to reason about them as if they might not be true. We used a continuity approach to test this proposal in non-clinical adults scoring high and low in psychometrically assessed delusion-proneness. High delusion-prone individuals were expected to show greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on “conflict” items of a “belief-bias” reasoning task (i.e. when required to reason logically about statements that conflicted with reality), but not on “non-conflict” items. Methods: Twenty high delusion-prone and twenty low delusion-prone participants (according to the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory) completed a belief-bias reasoning task and tests of IQ, working memory and general inhibition (Excluded Letter Fluency, Stroop and Hayling Sentence Completion).Results: High delusion-prone individuals showed greater difficulty than low delusion-prone individuals on the Stroop and Excluded Letter Fluency tests of inhibition, but no greater difficulty on the conflict versus non-conflict items of the belief-bias task. They did, however, make significantly more errors overall on the belief-bias task, despite controlling for IQ, working memory and general inhibitory control. Limitations: The study had a relatively small sample size and used non-clinical participants to test a theory of cognitive processing in individuals with clinically diagnosed delusions. Conclusions: Results failed to support a role for doxastic inhibitory failure in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals. These individuals did, however, show difficulty with conditional reasoning about statements that may or may not conflict with reality, independent of any general cognitive or inhibitory deficits.

KW - delusion-proneness

KW - doxastic

KW - inhibition

KW - two-factor

KW - belief-bias

KW - reasoning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032312189&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/CE110001021

U2 - 10.1016/j.jbtep.2017.02.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jbtep.2017.02.005

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 71

EP - 78

JO - Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

T2 - Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

JF - Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

SN - 0005-7916

ER -