Cited by 204Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Delusion formation and reasoning biases in those at clinical high risk for psychosis

Open access
Broome, M. R., Johns, L. C., Valli, I., Woolley, J. B., Tabraham, P., Brett, C., Valmaggia, L., Peters, E. +2 more·2007·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Cognitive models propose that faulty appraisal of anomalous experiences is critical in developing psychosis, particularly delusions. A data gathering bias may be fundamental to abnormal appraisal Aims: To examine whether there is a data gathering bias in people at high risk of developing psychosis Method: Individuals with an at-risk mental state (n=35) were compared with a matched group of healthy volunteers (n=23). Participants were tested using a modified version of the ‘beads’ reasoning task with different levels of task difficulty Results: When task demands were high, the at-risk group made judgements on the basis of less information than the control group (P < 0.05). Within both groups, jumping to conclusions was directly correlated with the severity of abnormal beliefs and intolerance of uncertainty (P<0.05). In the at-risk group it was also associated with impaired working memory (P<0.05), whereas in the control group poor working memory was associated with a more conservative response style (P<0.05) Conclusions: People with an at-risk mental state display a jumping to conclusions reasoning style, associated with impaired working memory and intolerance of uncertainty. This may underlie a tendency to develop abnormal beliefs and a vulnerability to psychosis

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.191.51.s38

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broome, M. R., Johns, L. C., Valli, I., Woolley, J. B., Tabraham, P., Brett, C., Valmaggia, L., Peters, E., Garety, P. A., & McGuire, P. K.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Broome, M. R.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2007-12
Volume
191
Issue
S51
Pages
s38-s42
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2027555607
Cited by
204
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
delusion formation, clinical high risk for psychosis, reasoning biases, jumping to conclusions, intolerance of uncertainty, working memory, anomalous experiences, response styles
MeSH terms
Adult, Delusions, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Intelligence, Judgment, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Problem Solving, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, 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