Problems in measuring the JTC-bias in patients with psychotic disorders with the fish task: a secondary analysis of a baseline assessment of a randomized controlled trial.
Cognitive bias
Delusional conviction
Delusions
Jumping to conclusions
Psychosis
Schizophrenia
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 11 2020
23 11 2020
Historique:
received:
17
03
2020
accepted:
16
11
2020
entrez:
24
11
2020
pubmed:
25
11
2020
medline:
11
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The jumping to conclusions bias (JTC) is considered to be an important causal factor in theoretical models for the formation and maintenance of delusions. However, recent meta-analytic findings show a rather equivocal pattern of results regarding associations between JTC and delusions. Thus, the present study aims to investigate in a large sample whether the JTC-bias is more pronounced in patients with psychotic disorders in comparison to controls and whether the JTC bias is associated with a more severe delusional conviction, persecutory delusions, and positive symptoms in general. Patients with psychotic disorders (n = 300) enrolled in a therapy trial and healthy controls (n = 51) conducted a variant of the beads task (fish task) as a measure for the JTC-bias at the start of the trial. Further, clinical interviews were used to assess patients' delusional severity and delusional conviction. There were no statistically significant differences between patients with psychotic disorders (with 53% displaying the JTC-bias) and controls (41%). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant correlations between JTC measures and persecutory delusions, delusional conviction, and positive symptoms. We found no differences in JTC between patients with psychotic disorders and healthy controls, which is in part in line with meta-analytic findings using a wide range of JTC task variants. Interestingly, patients with psychotic disorders displayed JTC rates commonly found in the literature, while healthy control subjects showed an unexpectedly high level of JTC. The task variant we used in the present study (fish task) is discussed as a potential reason for our results, as it may induce a more deliberative reasoning style in controls as compared to the traditional beads task. Furthermore, possible implications for the measurement of the JTC-bias, in general, are discussed. ISRCTN29242879 ( isrctn.com ), date of registration: April 12th 2006, retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The jumping to conclusions bias (JTC) is considered to be an important causal factor in theoretical models for the formation and maintenance of delusions. However, recent meta-analytic findings show a rather equivocal pattern of results regarding associations between JTC and delusions. Thus, the present study aims to investigate in a large sample whether the JTC-bias is more pronounced in patients with psychotic disorders in comparison to controls and whether the JTC bias is associated with a more severe delusional conviction, persecutory delusions, and positive symptoms in general.
METHODS
Patients with psychotic disorders (n = 300) enrolled in a therapy trial and healthy controls (n = 51) conducted a variant of the beads task (fish task) as a measure for the JTC-bias at the start of the trial. Further, clinical interviews were used to assess patients' delusional severity and delusional conviction.
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences between patients with psychotic disorders (with 53% displaying the JTC-bias) and controls (41%). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant correlations between JTC measures and persecutory delusions, delusional conviction, and positive symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no differences in JTC between patients with psychotic disorders and healthy controls, which is in part in line with meta-analytic findings using a wide range of JTC task variants. Interestingly, patients with psychotic disorders displayed JTC rates commonly found in the literature, while healthy control subjects showed an unexpectedly high level of JTC. The task variant we used in the present study (fish task) is discussed as a potential reason for our results, as it may induce a more deliberative reasoning style in controls as compared to the traditional beads task. Furthermore, possible implications for the measurement of the JTC-bias, in general, are discussed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN29242879 ( isrctn.com ), date of registration: April 12th 2006, retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33228583
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02959-5
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02959-5
pmc: PMC7685639
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
554Subventions
Organisme : German Ministry of Science and Education
ID : 01GV0618, 01GV0620
Références
Schizophr Res. 2012 May;137(1-3):246-50
pubmed: 22356801
Br J Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;203(5):327-33
pubmed: 24187067
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 May;186:427-35
pubmed: 15863749
Schizophr Bull. 2015 Mar;41(2):400-10
pubmed: 25053650
Behav Res Ther. 2007 Jun;45(6):1255-69
pubmed: 17052687
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2006 Nov;11(6):521-36
pubmed: 17354086
Schizophr Bull. 2014 Nov;40(6):1338-46
pubmed: 24743864
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2016 Jul;21(4):300-314
pubmed: 27341507
Schizophr Bull. 2016 May;42(3):652-65
pubmed: 26519952
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2017 Sep;56:51-56
pubmed: 27527489
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1988 Nov;40(4):801-12
pubmed: 3212213
Schizophr Res. 2013 Nov;150(2-3):570-4
pubmed: 24075604
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2016;21(2):91-106
pubmed: 26884221
Br J Clin Psychol. 1997 Nov;36(4):575-84
pubmed: 9403148
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2015 Nov;40(6):422-8
pubmed: 26197302
J Abnorm Psychol. 2017 May;126(4):406-415
pubmed: 28277733
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;5(1):50-6
pubmed: 21272275
Br J Clin Psychol. 2005 Jun;44(Pt 2):193-207
pubmed: 16004654
Psychol Med. 2015 Apr;45(6):1253-62
pubmed: 25272196
Schizophr Bull. 2015 Sep;41(5):1183-91
pubmed: 25616503
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2012 May;17(3):262-86
pubmed: 22224619
Schizophr Res Treatment. 2012;2012:384039
pubmed: 23125930
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Feb;284:112776
pubmed: 31981941
Schizophr Res. 2019 Jan;203:80-87
pubmed: 28927863
Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76
pubmed: 3616518
Trials. 2010 Dec 29;11:123
pubmed: 21190574
Psychol Med. 1999 Jul;29(4):879-89
pubmed: 10473315
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009 Mar;66(3):236-47
pubmed: 19255373
Schizophr Res. 2005 Nov 15;79(2-3):231-8
pubmed: 15982856
Psychol Med. 2020 Apr 24;:1-11
pubmed: 32327005
J Abnorm Psychol. 2010 Feb;119(1):40-9
pubmed: 20141241
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006 Jun;194(6):422-6
pubmed: 16772859
Schizophr Res. 2013 Nov;150(2-3):575-9
pubmed: 24091035
Clin Psychol Rev. 2001 Nov;21(8):1143-92
pubmed: 11702511
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;42(3):270-6
pubmed: 21349243
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;46(6):532-40
pubmed: 22679205
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2007 Jan;12(1):46-77
pubmed: 17162446
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jan;35(3):573-88
pubmed: 20620163
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;49(7):1011-22
pubmed: 24919446
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 1996 Nov 1;1(4):289-304
pubmed: 25420060
Psychiatry Res. 2009 Dec 30;170(2-3):124-7
pubmed: 19906443
J Abnorm Psychol. 2005 Aug;114(3):373-384
pubmed: 16117574
Schizophr Bull. 1999;25(3):553-76
pubmed: 10478789
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2010 Jan;35(1):7-17
pubmed: 20040242
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;49(8):1179-89
pubmed: 25005465
Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;30(8):943-9
pubmed: 26647870
Australas Psychiatry. 2008 Apr;16(2):87-91
pubmed: 18335363
Psychiatry Res. 2013 Dec 30;210(3):729-34
pubmed: 23998362
Schizophr Bull. 2006 Apr;32(2):341-51
pubmed: 16254066
Schizophr Bull. 2014 Mar;40(2):300-13
pubmed: 23413104
Clin Psychol Rev. 2007 May;27(4):425-57
pubmed: 17258852
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;4(3):263-6
pubmed: 20712733