The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive approaches to delusions: a critical review of theories and evidence.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review critically the evidence for three contemporary theories of delusions. METHODS: The theoretical approaches to delusions proposed by Frith and colleagues ('theory of mind' deficits), Garety and colleagues (multi-factorial, but involving probabilistic reasoning biases) and Bentall and colleagues (attributional style and self-discrepancies) are summarised. The findings of empirical papers directly relevant to these proposals are critically reviewed. These papers were identified by computerised literature searches (for the years 1987-1997) and a hand search. RESULTS: The evidence does not unequivocally support any of the approaches as proposed. However, strong evidence is found to support modifications of Garety and colleagues' and Bentall and colleagues' theories. Studies have replicated a 'jumping to conclusions' data-gathering bias and an externalising attributional bias in people with delusions. There is preliminary evidence for a 'theory of mind' deficit, as proposed by Frith, although possibly related to a more general reasoning bias. Evidence for an underlying discrepancy between ideal and actual self-representations is weaker. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-factorial model of delusion formation and maintenance incorporating a data-gathering bias and attributional style, together with other factors (e.g. perceptual processing, meta-representation) is consistent with the current evidence. It is recommended that these findings be incorporated into cognitive therapy approaches. However, there are limitations to existing research. Future studies should incorporate longitudinal designs and first episode studies, and should not neglect the co-morbidity of delusions, including affective processes, or the multi-dimensional nature of delusions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“delusional patients “jump to conclusions” in the first version, while they are more willing to revise their decision in light of contradictory evidence in the second (Garety and Freeman, 1999).”
From The Computational Anatomy of Psychosis (2013) · cites this paper as Garety and Freeman, 1999
In the citing paper
“The concept of MCT by Moritz and Woodward was originally inspired by research on cognitive biases in psychosis (65) and aims to convey metacognitive knowledge and raise metacognitive awareness for dysfunctional thought patterns (60, 122).”
From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [65]
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Society and the Adolescent Self-Image
Rosenberg, M. (1965) · doi:10.1515/9781400876136 · Cited by 30,126
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Higgins, E. T. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319 · Cited by 7,219
Drake, M. M. (1988) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.42.10.683b · Cited by 5,303
SCAN: Schedules fonr Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry
Wing, J. K. (1990) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810180089012 · Cited by 2,517
The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology
Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3 · Cited by 2,420
The cognitive neuropsychology of schizophrenia
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-0601 · Cited by 1,901
Corcoran, R., Mercer, G., & Frith, C. D. (1995) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/0920-9964(95)00024-g · Cited by 1,340
The attributional Style Questionnaire
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L., Metalsky, G., & Seligman, M. (1982) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/bf01173577 · Cited by 1,226
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kapur, S. (2003) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.13 · Cited by 2,813
A cognitive model of the positive symptoms of psychosis
GARETY, P. A., KUIPERS, E., FOWLER, D., FREEMAN, D., & BEBBINGTON, P. E. (2001) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291701003312 · Cited by 1,546
“Garety & Freeman (1999) have reviewed the evidence for biases in cognitive processes and found empirical support for an information gathering cognitive style characterized by jumping to conclusions, externalizing attributional biases, and deficits in understanding social situations and the intentions of others.”
BackgroundInfluentialGreen, M. F., Penn, D. L., Bentall, R. P., Carpenter, W. T., Gäebel, W., Gur, R. C., Kring, A. M., Park, S., Silverstein, S. M., & HEINSSEN, R. K. (2008) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbm145 · Cited by 1,111
“This is known as a personalizing bias.(30,31) Research involving persons with schizophrenia has also focused on hostile attributional biases or the tendency to attribute hostile intentions to others’ actions.”
BackgroundTHE CONTINUITY OF PSYCHOTIC EXPERIENCES IN THE GENERAL POPULATION
Johns, L. C., & van Os, J. (2001) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/s0272-7358(01)00103-9 · Cited by 960
“…deficits in theory of mind (Frith & Corcoran, 1996), impaired self-monitoring ( Johns & McGuire, 1999), reasoning bias (Garety, Hemsley, & Wessely, 1991), and dysfunctional attributions (Bentall, Kinderman, & Kaney, 1994) to samples at lower levels of the continuum (Garety & Freeman, 1999).”
BackgroundThe Computational Anatomy of Psychosis
Adams, R. A., Stephan, K. E., Brown, H. R., Frith, C. D., & Friston, K. J. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00047 · Cited by 850
“Interestingly, delusional patients “jump to conclusions” in the first version, while they are more willing to revise their decision in light of contradictory evidence in the second (Garety and Freeman, 1999).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Garety, P. A., & Freeman, D.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Garety, Philippa A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-154
- ISSN
- 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8260
- OpenAlex
- W2169951193
- Cited by
- 794
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 45
- FWCI
- 10.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Hallucinations in medical conditions
- Keywords
- delusions, theory of mind deficits, jumping to conclusions bias, attributional style, self-discrepancy, cognitive therapy, schizophrenia
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Cognition Disorders, Cognitive Dissonance, Delusions, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Paranoid Disorders, Personality, Self Concept, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
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
