Cited by 354Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Psychosis, delusions and the “jumping to conclusions” reasoning bias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Dudley, Robert, Taylor, Peter, Wickham, Sophie, Hutton, Paul·2016·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the magnitude and specificity of the "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias in psychosis and delusions. We examined the extent to which people with psychosis, and people with delusions specifically, required less information before making decisions. We examined (1) the average amount of information required to make a decision and (2) numbers who demonstrated an extreme JTC bias, as assessed by the "beads task." We compared people with psychosis to people with and without nonpsychotic mental health problems, and people with psychosis with and without delusions. We examined whether reduced data-gathering was associated with increased delusion severity. We identified 55 relevant studies, and acquired previously unpublished data from 16 authors. People with psychosis required significantly less information to make decisions than healthy individuals (k= 33,N= 1935,g= -0.53, 95% CI -0.69, -0.36) and those with nonpsychotic mental health problems (k= 13,N= 667,g= -0.58, 95% CI -0.80, -0.35). The odds of extreme responding in psychosis were between 4 and 6 times higher than the odds of extreme responding by healthy participants and participants with nonpsychotic mental health problems. The JTC bias was linked to a greater probability of delusion occurrence in psychosis (k= 14,N= 770, OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12, 2.05). There was a trend-level inverse association between data-gathering and delusion severity (k= 18;N= 794;r= -.09, 95% CI -0.21, 0.03). Hence, nonaffective psychosis is characterized by a hasty decision-making style, which is linked to an increased probability 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/sbv150

Cites

49 of 49 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

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [30]Sterne JA Egger M Moher D Addressing reporting bias. In: Higgins Julian P. T. Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008: 297– 334.
  2. [49]Galbraith N, ed Aberant beliefs and reasoning. 2015; London: Psychology Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dudley, R., Taylor, P., Wickham, S., & Hutton, P.
Affiliations
  • Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Dudley, Robert
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2015-10-31
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
652-665
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W2163505421
Cited by
353
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
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
psychosis, delusions
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Delusions, Humans, Psychotic Disorders

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