Suppr超能文献

仓促下错误结论?对妄想中推理错误机制的调查。

Jumping to the wrong conclusions? An investigation of the mechanisms of reasoning errors in delusions.

作者信息

Jolley Suzanne, Thompson Claire, Hurley James, Medin Evelina, Butler Lucy, Bebbington Paul, Dunn Graham, Freeman Daniel, Fowler David, Kuipers Elizabeth, Garety Philippa

机构信息

King׳s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychology, London, UK.

King׳s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychology, London, UK.

出版信息

Psychiatry Res. 2014 Oct 30;219(2):275-82. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.05.051. Epub 2014 Jun 4.

Abstract

Understanding how people with delusions arrive at false conclusions is central to the refinement of cognitive behavioural interventions. Making hasty decisions based on limited data ('jumping to conclusions', JTC) is one potential causal mechanism, but reasoning errors may also result from other processes. In this study, we investigated the correlates of reasoning errors under differing task conditions in 204 participants with schizophrenia spectrum psychosis who completed three probabilistic reasoning tasks. Psychotic symptoms, affect, and IQ were also evaluated. We found that hasty decision makers were more likely to draw false conclusions, but only 37% of their reasoning errors were consistent with the limited data they had gathered. The remainder directly contradicted all the presented evidence. Reasoning errors showed task-dependent associations with IQ, affect, and psychotic symptoms. We conclude that limited data-gathering contributes to false conclusions but is not the only mechanism involved. Delusions may also be maintained by a tendency to disregard evidence. Low IQ and emotional biases may contribute to reasoning errors in more complex situations. Cognitive strategies to reduce reasoning errors should therefore extend beyond encouragement to gather more data, and incorporate interventions focused directly on these difficulties.

摘要

理解妄想症患者如何得出错误结论是改进认知行为干预措施的核心。基于有限数据做出仓促决定(“急于下结论”,JTC)是一种潜在的因果机制,但推理错误也可能由其他过程导致。在本研究中,我们调查了204名患有精神分裂症谱系精神病的参与者在不同任务条件下推理错误的相关因素,这些参与者完成了三项概率推理任务。我们还评估了他们的精神症状、情感和智商。我们发现,急于做决定的人更有可能得出错误结论,但他们的推理错误中只有37%与他们收集到的有限数据相符。其余的则直接与所有呈现的证据相矛盾。推理错误显示出与智商、情感和精神症状的任务依赖性关联。我们得出结论,有限的数据收集会导致错误结论,但不是唯一涉及的机制。妄想也可能因无视证据的倾向而持续存在。低智商和情感偏见可能会在更复杂的情况下导致推理错误。因此,减少推理错误的认知策略不应仅仅局限于鼓励收集更多数据,还应纳入直接针对这些困难的干预措施。

相似文献

2
Reasoning in psychosis: risky but not necessarily hasty.精神病中的推理:有风险但未必草率。
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2016;21(2):91-106. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2015.1136611. Epub 2016 Feb 17.
7
Jumping to delusions in early psychosis.早期精神病中的妄想跳跃现象。
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2014;19(3):241-56. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2013.854198. Epub 2013 Nov 11.

引用本文的文献

3
Susceptibility to distraction during analogical reasoning in schizophrenia.精神分裂症患者在类比推理过程中对干扰的易感性。
Schizophr Res Cogn. 2019 Dec 11;20:100170. doi: 10.1016/j.scog.2019.100170. eCollection 2020 Jun.
7
Erotomania and Recommendations for Treatment.色情狂与治疗建议。
Psychiatr Q. 2016 Jun;87(2):355-64. doi: 10.1007/s11126-015-9392-0.
8
Data Gathering Bias: Trait Vulnerability to Psychotic Symptoms?数据收集偏差:对精神病症状的特质易感性?
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 6;10(7):e0132442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132442. eCollection 2015.
9
Focus on psychosis.关注精神病。
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2015 Mar;17(1):9-18. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2015.17.1/wgaebel.

本文引用的文献

4
Neuropsychological functioning and jumping to conclusions in delusions.神经心理学功能与妄想中的草率结论
Schizophr Res. 2013 Nov;150(2-3):570-4. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2013.08.035. Epub 2013 Sep 25.

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