Suppr超能文献

草率下结论和妄想:讨论偏见对偏见的影响。

Jumping to conclusions and delusions: the impact of discussion of the bias on the bias.

机构信息

University of Indianapolis, School of Psychological Sciences, 1400 East Hanna Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46227, USA.

出版信息

Schizophr Res. 2013 Nov;150(2-3):575-9. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2013.09.003. Epub 2013 Oct 3.

Abstract

The present study was an investigation of the impact a brief intervention designed to raise awareness of a cognitive bias known to be robust for individuals with delusions has on the reasoning strategies of individuals with delusions. Individuals with delusions (n=57) were randomly assigned either to receive or not to receive a discussion of the jumping to conclusions bias and its pitfalls. Participants' performance on 3 reasoning trials - 1 emotionally neutral (beads) and 2 emotionally salient (self-referred survey words) - was then assessed; the number of stimuli participants requested before making a decision was evaluated to determine if the Jumping to Conclusions Discussion resulted in increased data gathering. There was no difference between groups (those who received and those who did not receive the Jumping to Conclusions Discussion) in terms of how many beads they gathered (p=.36), but there were significant differences on both reasoning trials of emotionally salient stimuli (p's<.05), such that participants who received the Jumping to Conclusions Discussion requested more stimuli on those tasks than individuals who did not receive the discussion. Thus, results suggest that discussion of the jumping to conclusions bias may impact the bias directly, at least for material that is emotional in nature. Results are discussed in terms of their relevance to cognitive behavioral therapies for psychosis and existing research on reasoning and delusions.

摘要

本研究旨在探讨一项旨在提高对认知偏差的认识的简短干预措施对妄想个体推理策略的影响,这种认知偏差对个体的妄想具有较强的影响。研究对象为 57 名妄想患者,他们被随机分配接受或不接受关于跳跃式结论偏差及其陷阱的讨论。然后评估参与者在 3 项推理测试中的表现 - 1 项是情绪中立的(珠子),2 项是情绪强烈的(自我参照的调查词汇) - 评估参与者在做出决策前请求的刺激数量,以确定跳跃式结论讨论是否导致了更多的数据收集。在收集珠子的数量方面,接受和未接受跳跃式结论讨论的两组之间没有差异(p=.36),但在情绪强烈刺激的两个推理测试中存在显著差异(p<.05),即接受跳跃式结论讨论的参与者在这些任务中请求的刺激比未接受讨论的参与者更多。因此,结果表明,对跳跃式结论偏差的讨论可能会直接影响该偏差,至少对于性质为情绪的材料是如此。结果将根据其与精神病的认知行为疗法和现有的推理与妄想研究的相关性进行讨论。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验