Symptom-related attributional biases in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Biases in causal attributions and evidence integration have been implicated in delusions, but have not been investigated simultaneously to examine additive or multiplicative effects. It was hypothesised that paranoid delusions would correlate with self-serving and personalising biases ("defence" model of paranoia), particularly when these biases were disconfirmed. METHODS: Constrained principal component analysis was used to investigate differences between schizophrenia patients (paranoid vs. non-paranoid), bipolar disorder patients, and healthy controls, as well as to examine the extent to which psychotic symptoms could predict patterns of responding on a novel attributional bias task (Attributional Style BADE, or ASB) that requires integrating contextual information. RESULTS: Although no group differences were found, disorganisation and manic symptoms correlated with situation attributions and self-blame when such attributions were unsupported by the available evidence, and depression and anxiety correlated with other-person and self attributions (not situation attributions) when confirmed by the available evidence, regardless of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While group differences accounted for little variance in responses on the ASB task, a transdiagnostic association between symptoms of psychosis and the ASB task was observed. This highlights the importance of considering symptom profiles rather than diagnostic groupings when investigating cognitive biases and related non-pharmacological treatments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it