Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Schizophr Bull. 2018 Jan 13;44(1):126-136. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbx029.
There is evidence for a group of nonclinical individuals with full-blown, persistent psychotic experiences (PEs) but no need-for-care: they are of particular importance in identifying risk and protective factors for clinical psychosis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether reasoning biases are related to PEs or need-for-care.
Two groups with persistent PEs (clinical; n = 74; nonclinical; n = 92) and a control group without PEs (n = 83) were compared on jumping-to-conclusions (JTC) and belief flexibility. A randomly selected subset of interviews (n = 104) was analyzed to examine differences in experiential and rational reasoning.
As predicted JTC was more common in the clinical than the other 2 groups. Unexpectedly no group differences were observed between clinical and nonclinical groups on measures of belief flexibility. However, the clinical group was less likely to employ rational reasoning, while the nonclinical group was more likely to use experiential reasoning plus a combination of both types of reasoning processes, compared to the other 2 groups.
Reasoning biases differ in groups with PEs with and without need-for-care. JTC is associated with need-for-care rather than with PEs. The ability to invoke rational reasoning processes, together with an absence of JTC, may protect against pathological outcomes of persistent PEs. However, marked use of experiential reasoning is associated with the occurrence of PEs in both clinical and nonclinical groups. Implications for theory development, intervention and further research are discussed.
有证据表明，有一群非临床个体出现了完全持续的精神病性体验（PEs），但不需要治疗：他们对于确定临床精神病的风险和保护因素具有特殊的重要性。本研究旨在探讨推理偏差是否与 PEs 或治疗需求有关。
将两组持续存在 PEs 的个体（临床组；n=74；非临床组；n=92）与无 PEs 的对照组（n=83）进行比较，比较跳跃结论（JTC）和信念灵活性。对随机选择的访谈子集（n=104）进行分析，以检查经验和理性推理方面的差异。
正如预测的那样，临床组比其他两组更容易出现 JTC。出乎意料的是，在信念灵活性的测量上，临床组和非临床组之间没有观察到差异。然而，与其他两组相比，临床组不太可能采用理性推理，而非临床组更有可能使用经验推理以及两种推理过程的组合。
具有治疗需求和无治疗需求的 PEs 个体之间的推理偏差不同。JTC 与治疗需求有关，而不是与 PEs 有关。能够调用理性推理过程，同时不存在 JTC，可能会预防持续 PEs 的病理性后果。然而，经验推理的明显使用与临床和非临床组 PEs 的发生有关。讨论了对理论发展、干预和进一步研究的影响。
