Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Failure of hypothesis evaluation as a factor in delusional belief

Max Coltheart*, Martin Davies

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    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 languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)213-230
    Number of pages18
    JournalCognitive Neuropsychiatry
    Volume26
    Issue number4
    Early online date20 Apr 2021
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 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