Cited by 198Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Jumping to conclusions about the beads task? A meta-analysis of delusional ideation and data-gathering

Open access
Ross, Robert Malcolm, McKay, Ryan, Coltheart, Max, Langdon, Robyn·2015·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

It has been claimed that delusional and delusion-prone individuals have a tendency to gather less data before forming beliefs. Most of the evidence for this "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias comes from studies using the "beads task" data-gathering paradigm. However, the evidence for the JTC bias is mixed. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of individual participant data from 38 clinical and nonclinical samples (n = 2,237) to investigate the relationship between data gathering in the beads task (using the "draws to decision" measure) and delusional ideation (as indexed by the "Peters et al Delusions Inventory"; PDI). We found that delusional ideation is negatively associated with data gathering (r(s) = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, -0.03]) and that there is heterogeneity in the estimated effect sizes (Q-stat P = .03, I(2) = 33). Subgroup analysis revealed that the negative association is present when considering the 23 samples (n = 1,754) from the large general population subgroup alone (r(s) = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.02]) but not when considering the 8 samples (n = 262) from the small current delusions subgroup alone (r(s) = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.07]). These results provide some provisional support for continuum theories of psychosis and cognitive models that implicate the JTC bias in the formation and maintenance of delusions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbu187

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Those induced to experience negative affect reported significantly more paranoid thoughts and a more pronounced Jumping to Conclusions bias than those not induced.

    “The typical finding is that those induced to experience negative affect reported significantly more paranoid thoughts and a more pronounced Jumping to Conclusions bias (JTC, for a review see [36] when compared to participants who were not induced to experience negative affect [35, 36].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Cuthbert BN. The RDoC framework: facilitating transi- tion from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that inte- grate neuroscience and psychopathology. World Psychiatry. 2014;13:28-35.
  2. Peters ER, Joseph SA, Day S, Garety PA. Measuring delu- sional ideation. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:1005-1022.
  3. Mosteller FM, Bush RR. Selected quantitiative techniques. In: Lindzey G, ed. Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol I. Theory and Method. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1954.
  4. Gelman A, Loken E. The garden of forking paths: why mul- tiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no "fishing expedition" or "p-hacking" and the research hypoth- esis was posited ahead of time. Am Sci. In press.
  5. Warman DM, Martin JM. Jumping to conclusions and delu- sion proneness: the impact of emotionally salient stimuli. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006;194:760-765. *
  6. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analysis in R with the metafor package. 2010;36:1-48.
  7. Maher BA. Delusion. In: Adams HE & Sutker PB, eds. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2004:309-340.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ross, R. M., McKay, R., Coltheart, M., & Langdon, R.
Affiliations
  • ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders (AU)
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Ross, Robert Malcolm
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2015-01-22
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
1183-1191
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W2149279583
Cited by
198
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Macquarie University
  • Australian Research Council (FT110100631)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
jumping to conclusions bias, delusional ideation
MeSH terms
Adult, Delusions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Thinking, Young Adult

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