Cited by 137Schizophrenia research and treatmentDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsMental Health and Psychiatry

Bayesian modelling of Jumping-to-Conclusions bias in delusional patients

Moutoussis, Michael, Bentall, Richard P., El-Deredy, Wael, Dayan, Peter·2011·Cognitive Neuropsychiatry

Abstract

INTRODUCTION. When deciding about the cause underlying serially presented events, patients with delusions utilise fewer events than controls, showing a "Jumping-to-Conclusions" bias. This has been widely hypothesised to be because patients expect to incur higher costs if they sample more information. This hypothesis is, however, unconfirmed. METHODS. The hypothesis was tested by analysing patient and control data using two models. The models provided explicit, quantitative variables characterising decision making. One model was based on calculating the potential costs of making a decision; the other compared a measure of certainty to a fixed threshold. RESULTS. Differences between paranoid participants and controls were found, but not in the way that was previously hypothesised. A greater "noise" in decision making (relative to the effective motivation to get the task right), rather than greater perceived costs, best accounted for group differences. Paranoid participants also deviated from ideal Bayesian reasoning more than healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS. The Jumping-to-Conclusions Bias is unlikely to be due to an overestimation of the cost of gathering more information. The analytic approach we used, involving a Bayesian model to estimate the parameters characterising different participant populations, is well suited to testing hypotheses regarding "hidden" variables underpinning observed behaviours.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13546805.2010.548678

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jumping to conclusions may reflect greater cognitive noise in delusional patients, which may speak to reduced precision of higher-level (cognitive) representations and consequently a greater influence of new sensory evidence.

    “Bayesian modeling suggests that jumping to conclusions may reflect greater “cognitive noise” in delusional patients (Moutoussis et al., 2011), which may speak to reduced precision of higher level (cognitive) representations and consequently a greater influence of new sensory evidence (Speechley et al., 2010).”

    From The Computational Anatomy of Psychosis (2013) · cites this paper as Moutoussis et al., 2011

  • The JTC bias may arise from altered noise in decision making.

    “For example, the JTC bias might arise because of altered noise in decision making.7”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moutoussis, M., Bentall, R. P., El-Deredy, W., & Dayan, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Moutoussis, Michael
Venue
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry
Published
2011-09
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
422-447
ISSN
  • 1354-6805 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0619
OpenAlex
W2078443730
Cited by
137
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
jumping to conclusions bias, delusions, paranoia, Bayesian decision making, decision costs, noise in decision making, causal reasoning
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Delusions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paranoid Disorders, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Paranoid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review