scholarly journals Understanding jumping to conclusions in patients with persecutory delusions: working memory and intolerance of uncertainty

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (14) ◽  
pp. 3017-3024 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Freeman ◽  
H. Startup ◽  
G. Dunn ◽  
E. Černis ◽  
G. Wingham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Working Memory ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽  
Contributory Factor ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Psychotic Experience ◽  
Persecutory Delusions ◽  
Jumping To Conclusions

BackgroundPersecutory delusions are a key psychotic experience. A reasoning style known as ‘jumping to conclusions’ (JTC) – limited information gathering before reaching certainty in decision making – has been identified as a contributory factor in the occurrence of delusions. The cognitive processes that underpin JTC need to be determined in order to develop effective interventions for delusions. In the current study two alternative perspectives were tested: that JTC partially results from impairment in information-processing capabilities and that JTC is a motivated strategy to avoid uncertainty.MethodA group of 123 patients with persistent persecutory delusions completed assessments of JTC (the 60:40 beads task), IQ, working memory, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychiatric symptoms. Patients showing JTC were compared with patients not showing JTC.ResultsA total of 30 (24%) patients with delusions showed JTC. There were no differences between patients who did and did not jump to conclusions in overall psychopathology. Patients who jumped to conclusions had poorer working memory performance, lower IQ, lower intolerance of uncertainty and lower levels of worry. Working memory and worry independently predicted the presence of JTC.ConclusionsHasty decision making in patients with delusions may partly arise from difficulties in keeping information in mind. Interventions for JTC are likely to benefit from addressing working memory performance, whilein vivotechniques for patients with delusions will benefit from limiting the demands on working memory. The study provides little evidence for a contribution to JTC from top-down motivational beliefs about uncertainty.

scholarly journals Delusion formation and reasoning biases in those at clinical high risk for psychosis

2007 ◽  
Vol 191 (S51) ◽  
pp. s38-s42 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. R. Broome ◽  
L. C. Johns ◽  
I. Valli ◽  
J. B. Woolley ◽  
P. Tabraham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Working Memory ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Jumping To Conclusions ◽  
At Risk Mental State

BackgroundCognitive models propose that faulty appraisal of anomalous experiences is critical in developing psychosis, particularly delusions. A data gathering bias may be fundamental to abnormal appraisalAimsTo examine whether there is a data gathering bias in people at high risk of developing psychosisMethodIndividuals with an at-risk mental state (n=35) were compared with a matched group of healthy volunteers (n=23). Participants were tested using a modified version of the ‘beads’ reasoning task with different levels of task difficultyResultsWhen task demands were high, the at-risk group made judgements on the basis of less information than the control group (P < 0.05). Within both groups, jumping to conclusions was directly correlated with the severity of abnormal beliefs and intolerance of uncertainty (P<0.05). In the at-risk group it was also associated with impaired working memory (P<0.05), whereas in the control group poor working memory was associated with a more conservative response style (P<0.05)ConclusionsPeople with an at-risk mental state display a jumping to conclusions reasoning style, associated with impaired working memory and intolerance of uncertainty. This may underlie a tendency to develop abnormal beliefs and a vulnerability to psychosis

Short- and long-term memory tasks predict working memory performance, and vice versa.

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Neath ◽  
Jean Saint-Aubin ◽  
Tamra J. Bireta ◽  
Andrew J. Gabel ◽  
Chelsea G. Hudson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Short And Long Term

How Does Caffeine Impact Working Memory Performance in Extraverts and Introverts?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn Jansen ◽  
Gabriella Dimotsantos ◽  
Marian E. Berryhill
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Memory Performance

Retrospective prioritization of multiple items during working memory storage

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley DiPuma ◽  
Kelly Rivera ◽  
Edward Ester
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Memory Item ◽  
Neutral Condition ◽  
Memory Storage ◽  
Single Item ◽  
Incorrect Item ◽  
Memory Precision ◽  
Neutral Conditions ◽  
Directing Attention

Working memory (WM) performance can be improved by an informative cue presented during storage. This effect, termed a retro-cue benefit, can be used to explore mechanisms of attentional prioritization in WM. Directing attention to a single item stored in memory is known to increase memory precision while decreasing the likelihood of incorrect item reports and random guesses, but it is unclear whether similar benefits manifest when participants direct attention to multiple items stored in memory. We tested this possibility by quantifying memory performance when participants were cued to prioritize one or two items stored in working memory. Consistent with prior work, cueing participants to prioritize a single memory item yielded higher recall precision, fewer swap errors, and fewer guesses relative to a neutral cue condition. Conversely, cueing participants to prioritize two memory items yielded fewer swap errors relative to a neutral condition, but no differences in recall precision or guess rates. Although swap rates were less likely during the cue-two vs. neutral conditions, planned comparisons revealed that when participants made swap errors during cue-two trials they were far more likely to confuse two prioritized stimuli than they were to confuse a prioritized stimulus vs. a non-prioritized stimulus. Our results suggest that it is possible to prioritize multiple items stored in memory, with the caveat that doing so may increase the probability of confusing prioritized items.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document