The role of cognitive biases and personality variables in subclinical delusional ideation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A number of cognitive biases, most notably a data gathering bias characterised by "jumping to conclusions" (JTC), and the "bias against disconfirmatory evidence" (BADE), have been shown to be associated with delusions and subclinical delusional ideation. Certain personality variables, particularly "openness to experience", are thought to be associated with schizotypy. METHODS: Using structural equation modelling, we examined the association between two higher order subfactors ("aspects") of "openness to experience" (labelled "openness" and "intellect"), these cognitive biases, and their relationship to subclinical delusional ideation in 121 healthy, nonpsychiatric controls. RESULTS: Our results suggest that cognitive biases (specifically the data gathering bias and BADE) and the "openness" aspect are independently associated with subclinical delusional ideation, and the data gathering bias is weakly associated with "positive schizotypy". "Intellect" is negatively associated with delusional ideation and might play a potential protective role. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive biases and personality are likely to be independent risk factors for the development of delusions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".