Reasoning heuristics across the psychosis continuum: The contribution of hypersalient evidence–hypothesis matches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches has recently been proposed as the cognitive mechanism responsible for the cognitive biases which, in turn, may contribute to the formation and maintenance of delusions. However, the construct lacks empirical support. The current paper investigates the possibility that individuals with delusions are hypersalient to evidence-hypothesis matches using a series of cognitive tasks designed to elicit the representativeness and availability reasoning heuristics. It was hypothesised that hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches may increase a person's propensity to rely on judgements of representativeness (i.e., when the probability of an outcome is based on its similarity with its parent population) and availability (i.e., estimates of frequency based on the ease with which relevant events come to mind). METHODS: A total of 75 participants (25 diagnosed with schizophrenia with a history of delusions; 25 nonclinical delusion-prone; 25 nondelusion-prone controls) completed four heuristics tasks based on the original Tversky and Kahnemann experiments. These included two representativeness tasks ("coin-toss" random sequence task; "lawyer-engineer" base-rates task) and two availability tasks ("famous-names" and "letter-frequency" tasks). RESULTS: The results across these four heuristics tasks showed that participants with schizophrenia were more susceptible than nonclinical groups to both the representativeness and availability reasoning heuristics. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that delusional ideation is linked to a hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches. The theoretical implications of this cognitive mechanism on the formation and maintenance of delusions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".