TY - JOUR
T1 - Taxonomising delusions
T2 - content or aetiology?
AU - Clutton, Peter
AU - Gadsby, Stephen
AU - Klein, Colin
PY - 2017/11/2
Y1 - 2017/11/2
N2 - Introduction: Many theoretical treatments assume (often implicitly) that delusions ought to be taxonomised by the content of aberrant beliefs. A theoretically sound, and comparatively under-explored, alternative would split and combine delusions according to their underlying cognitive aetiology.Methods: We give a theoretical review of several cases, focusing on monothematic delusions of misidentification and on somatoparaphrenia.Results: We show that a purely content-based taxonomy is empirically problematic. It does not allow for projectability of discoveries across all members of delusions so delineated, and lumps together delusions that ought to be separated. We demonstrate that an aetiological approach is defensible, and further that insofar as content-based approaches are plausible, it is only to the extent that they implicitly link content to aetiology.Conclusions: We recommend a more explicit focus on cognitive aetiology as the grounds for delusion taxonomy, even when that would undermine traditional content-based boundaries. We also highlight the iterative and complex nature of evidence about aetiologically grounded taxonomies.
AB - Introduction: Many theoretical treatments assume (often implicitly) that delusions ought to be taxonomised by the content of aberrant beliefs. A theoretically sound, and comparatively under-explored, alternative would split and combine delusions according to their underlying cognitive aetiology.Methods: We give a theoretical review of several cases, focusing on monothematic delusions of misidentification and on somatoparaphrenia.Results: We show that a purely content-based taxonomy is empirically problematic. It does not allow for projectability of discoveries across all members of delusions so delineated, and lumps together delusions that ought to be separated. We demonstrate that an aetiological approach is defensible, and further that insofar as content-based approaches are plausible, it is only to the extent that they implicitly link content to aetiology.Conclusions: We recommend a more explicit focus on cognitive aetiology as the grounds for delusion taxonomy, even when that would undermine traditional content-based boundaries. We also highlight the iterative and complex nature of evidence about aetiologically grounded taxonomies.
KW - aetiology
KW - belief
KW - content
KW - Delusions
KW - taxonomy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034628334&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT140100422
U2 - 10.1080/13546805.2017.1404975
DO - 10.1080/13546805.2017.1404975
M3 - Article
C2 - 29157137
AN - SCOPUS:85034628334
VL - 22
SP - 508
EP - 527
JO - Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
JF - Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
SN - 1354-6805
IS - 6
ER -