Inflexible social inference in individuals with subclinical persecutory delusional tendencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suspected that abnormalities in social inference (e.g., learning others' intentions) play a key role in theformation of persecutory delusions (PD). In this study, we examined the association between subclinical PD andsocial inference, testing the prediction that proneness to PD is related to altered social inference and beliefs aboutothers' intentions. Weincluded 151 participants scoring on opposite ends of Freeman's Paranoia Checklist (PCL).The participants performed a probabilistic advice-taking task with a dynamically changing social context (volatility)under one of two experimental frames. These frames differentiallyemphasised possible reasons behind unhelpfuladvice: (i) the adviser's possible intentions (dispositional frame) or (ii) the rules of the game (situationalframe). Our design was thus 2 × 2 factorial (high vs. low delusional tendencies, dispositional vs. situationalframe). We found significant group-by-frame interactions, indicating that in the situational frame high PCLscorers took advice less into account than low scorers. Additionally, high PCL scorers believed more frequentlythat incorrect advice was delivered intentionally and that such misleading behaviour was directed towardsthem personally. Overall, our results suggest that social inference in individuals with subclinical PD tendenciesis shaped by negative prior beliefs about the intentions of others and is thus less sensitive to the attributionalframing of adviser-related information. These findings may help future attempts of identifying individuals atrisk for developing psychosis and understanding persecutory delusions in psychosis.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".