Abstract
Introduction:
In accounts of the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor in this theory has been referred to only in the most general terms, as a failure in the processes of hypothesis evaluation, with no attempt to characterise those processes in any detail. Coltheart and Davies ([2021]. How unexpected observations lead to new beliefs: A Peircean pathway. Consciousness and Cognition, 87, 103037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103037) attempted such a characterisation, proposing a detailed eight-step model of how unexpected observations lead to new beliefs based on the concept of abductive inference as introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce.
Methods:
In this paper, we apply that model to the explanation of various forms of delusional belief.
Results:
We provide evidence that in cases of delusion there is a specific failure of the seventh step in our model: the step at which predictions from (delusional) hypotheses are considered in the light of relevant evidence.
Conclusions:
In the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor consists of a failure to reject hypotheses in the face of disconfirmatory evidence.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 213-230 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Cognitive Neuropsychiatry |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 20 Apr 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 4 Jul 2021 |
Keywords
- delusion
- two-factor theory
- abduction
- Charles Sanders Peirce
- bias against disconfirmatory evidence
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Failure of hypothesis evaluation as a factor in delusional belief'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver