Persons J B, Baron J
J Nerv Ment Dis. 1985 Nov;173(11):667-76.
Three theories about the cognitive processes underlying symptoms of formal thought disorder in psychiatric inpatients were tested. Chapman and Chapman's "excessive yielding to normal bias" theory and a response competition theory were tested by using two ambiguity tasks. Chapman and Chapman's bias theory predicts a smaller ambiguity effect for thought-disordered patients; a response competition hypothesis predicts a larger ambiguity effect. Results showed no difference between thought-disordered and non-thought-disordered patients. To test a distractibility theory of thought disorder, subjects performed a Stroop-type task in which they counted the number of digits (e.g., 3333) or symbols (####) in a set. Thought-disordered patients did show an increased effect of the presence of the digits, and this finding was replicated in a second inpatient sample. Thus, results were consistent with the distractibility theory and with a reformulation of the bias theory, in which the bias shown by thought-disordered patients is not a tendency toward a particular response, but rather toward a particular rule, or set, for responding.
针对精神科住院患者形式思维障碍症状背后的认知过程的三种理论进行了检验。通过两项歧义任务对查普曼和查普曼的“过度屈从于正常偏差”理论以及反应竞争理论进行了检验。查普曼和查普曼的偏差理论预测，思维障碍患者的歧义效应较小；反应竞争假说预测，歧义效应较大。结果显示，思维障碍患者与非思维障碍患者之间没有差异。为了检验思维障碍的注意力分散理论，受试者进行了一项斯特鲁普类型的任务，在该任务中，他们要数一组中数字（如3333）或符号（####）的数量。思维障碍患者确实表现出数字存在时的效应增加，这一发现也在第二个住院患者样本中得到了重复。因此，结果与注意力分散理论以及偏差理论的重新表述一致，在偏差理论的重新表述中，思维障碍患者表现出的偏差不是倾向于特定反应，而是倾向于特定的反应规则或集合。
