Incorrigibility, jumping to conclusions, and decision threshold in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies confirmed a bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE) for both delusional and delusion-neutral events in paranoid schizophrenia. In the present study, we examined a potential relationship between the BADE and delusional ideation. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with schizophrenia (32 with current delusions), 20 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and 30 healthy participants were presented written scenarios composed of three successive sentences which increasingly disambiguated the situation. Participants were asked to rate interpretations presented along with the sentences. After each new sentence, participants could adjust their judgements in view of the new information. One interpretation ("true") did not seem to fit the first statement but became increasingly plausible, whereas "lure" interpretations appeared very likely initially but were eventually incorrect. Patients were given the option to decide for one of the statements. RESULTS: Patients with schizophrenia, irrespective of delusion severity, attenuated their ratings significantly less for lure interpretations in face of disconfirmatory evidence (BADE) compared to both control groups. We found no impairment regarding the integration of confirmatory evidence. Patients with schizophrenia made more incorrect decisions after the first sentence indicating jumping to conclusions relative to healthy controls. Participants with schizophrenia showed a lowered decision threshold compared to the controls. CONCLUSIONS: The findings lend further evidence to the claim that patients with schizophrenia are hastier and rather inflexible in their decision making. This response pattern may represent a trait-like vulnerability factor for the emergence of delusional incorrigibility, a hallmark symptom of schizophrenia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".