Conflict Detection Predicts the Temporal Stability of Intuitive and Deliberate Reasoning

Although the susceptibility to reasoning biases is often assumed to be a stable trait, the temporal stability of people’s performance on popular heuristics-and-biases tasks has been rarely directly tested. The present study addressed this issue and examined a potential determinant for answer change. Participants solved the same set of “bias” tasks twice in two test sessions, two weeks apart. We used the two-response paradigm to test the stability of both initial (intuitive) and final (deliberate) responses. We hypothesized that participants who showed higher conflict detection in their initial intuitive responses at session 1 (as indexed by a relative confidence decrease compared to control problems), would be less stable in their responses between session 1 and 2. Results showed that performance on the reasoning tasks was highly, but not entirely, stable two weeks later. Notably, conflict detection in session 1 was significantly more pronounced in those cases that participants did change their answer between sessions. We discuss practical and theoretical implications.

T70. DUAL-PROCESS THEORY, CONFLICT PROCESSING, AND DELUSIONAL BELIEF

Background Individuals endorsing delusions exhibit multiple reasoning biases, including a bias toward lower decision thresholds, a bias toward gathering less data before forming conclusions, and a bias toward discounting evidence against one’s beliefs. Although these biases have been repeatedly associated with delusions, it remains unclear how they might arise, how they might be interrelated, and whether any of them play a causal role in forming or maintaining delusions. Progress toward answering these questions may be made by examining delusion-related reasoning biases from the perspective of dual-process theories of reasoning. Dual-process theories posit that human reasoning proceeds via two systems: an intuitive system (which is autonomous, does not require working memory) and an analytic system (which relies on working memory, supports hypothetical thought). Importantly, when the outputs of one or both systems conflict with one another, successful detection of this conflict is thought to produce additional engagement in analytic reasoning. Thus, the detection of and ensuing neurocognitive response to conflict may modulate analytic reasoning engagement. Working from this dual-process perspective, recent theories have hypothesized that more limited engagement in analytic reasoning, perhaps resulting from conflict processing deficits, may engender delusion-inspiring reasoning biases in people with schizophrenia. Methods Given this hypothesis, a literature review (Bronstein et al., 2019, Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101748) was conducted to critically evaluate whether impaired conflict processing might be a primary initiating deficit in pathways relevant to the generation of delusion-relevant reasoning biases and the formation and/or maintenance of delusions themselves. Results Research examined in this review suggested that in healthy people, successful conflict detection raises decision thresholds. Conflict-processing deficits in delusional individuals with schizophrenia might impair this process. Consistent with this possibility, delusional individuals with schizophrenia (vs. healthy controls) make more decisions when they perceive their favored choice to be only marginally better than alternatives. Lower decision thresholds in individuals who endorse delusions may limit analytic thinking (which takes time). Reductions in decision-making thresholds and in analytic reasoning engagement may encourage these individuals to jump to conclusions, potentially promoting delusion formation, and may also increase bias against disconfirmatory evidence, which may help delusions persist. Discussion Extant literature suggests that conflict processing deficits might encourage delusion-related cognitive biases, which is broadly consistent with the idea that these deficits may be causally primary in pathways leading to delusions. This conclusion lends credence to previous theories suggesting that reduced modulation toward analytic reasoning in the presence of conflict might promote delusions. Future research should attempt to more specifically determine the source of deficits related to analytic reasoning engagement in delusional individuals with schizophrenia. It is often unclear whether analytic-reasoning-related deficits observed in existing literature result from impairments in conflict detection, responsiveness to conflict, or both. Tasks used to study dual-process reasoning in the general population may be useful platforms for specifying the nature of analytic-reasoning-related deficits in delusional individuals with schizophrenia.

Individual differences in epistemically suspect beliefs: The role of susceptibility to cognitive biases

The endorsement of epistemically suspect (i.e. paranormal, conspiracy, and pseudoscientific) beliefs is widespread and has negative real-life consequences. Therefore, it is important to understand individual differences in epistemically suspect beliefs and their associations with systematic reasoning errors – cognitive biases. In Study 1 (N = 263), I constructed a novel questionnaire of epistemically suspect beliefs and examined its psychometric properties and relationships with probabilistic reasoning biases. In Study 2 (N = 397), I examined probabilistic reasoning biases and biased evaluation of evidence as predictors of the endorsement of epistemically suspect beliefs, while accounting for analytic thinking and worldview variables. Although probabilistic reasoning biases, analytic thinking, religious faith, and political liberalism consistently predicted epistemically suspect beliefs, the effect of biased evaluation of evidence was partialled out by analytic thinking. Further research will be needed to examine the interplay between analytic thinking and the tendency toward information evaluation biased by one’s existing beliefs.

Measuring Reasoning in Paranoia: Development of the Fast and Slow Thinking Questionnaire

Paranoid thoughts are common across the psychosis continuum. It is well established that reasoning biases (conceived as an overreliance on fast thinking and lack of willingness and/or ability to engage in slow thinking) contribute to paranoia. Targeted therapies have shown promise in improving reasoning in order to reduce paranoia. Psychometrically robust and easy-to-use measures of these thinking styles will assist research and clinical practice. Existing assessments include experimental tasks that are complex to administer or self-report measures that have limitations in comprehensively assessing cognitive biases in paranoia. We have developed the first questionnaire to assess fast and slow thinking biases related to paranoid thoughts, and here report on its evaluation. In study 1, we generated, evaluated, and extracted items reflecting reasoning, and assessed their reliability and validity in a non-clinical sample (n = 209). In study 2, we replicated the factor analysis and psychometric evaluation in a clinical sample (n = 265). The resultant Fast and Slow Thinking (FaST) questionnaire consists of two 5-item scales reflecting fast and slow thinking and is therefore brief and suitable for use in both research and clinical practice. The fast thinking scale is reliable and valid. Reliability and criterion validity of the slow scale shows promise. It had limited construct validity with objective reasoning assessments in the clinical group, possibly due to impaired meta-cognitive awareness of slow thinking. We recommend the FaST questionnaire as a new tool for improving understanding of reasoning biases in paranoia and supporting targeted psychological therapies.

Stress and cognitive biases in schizotypy: A two-site study of bias against disconfirmatory evidence and jumping to conclusions

The dysfunctional cognitive and reasoning biases which underpin psychotic symptoms are likely to present prior to the onset of a diagnosable disorder and should therefore be detectable along the psychosis continuum in individuals with schizotypal traits. Two reasoning biases, Bias Against Disconfirmatory Evidence (BADE) and Jumping to Conclusions (JTC), describe how information is selected and weighed under conditions of uncertainty during decision making. It is likely that states such as elevated stress exacerbates JTC and BADE in individuals with high schizotypal traits vulnerable to displaying these information gathering styles. Therefore, we evaluated whether stress and schizotypy interacted to predict these reasoning biases using separate samples from the US (JTC) and England (BADE). Generally speaking, schizotypal traits and stress were not independently associated with dysfunctional reasoning biases. However, across both studies, the interaction between schizotypy traits and stress significantly predicted reasoning biases such that increased stress was associated with increased reasoning biases, but only for individuals low in schizotypal traits. These patterns were observed for positive schizotypal traits (in both samples), for negative traits (in the England sample only), but not for disorganization traits. For both samples, our findings suggest that the presence of states such as stress is associated with, though not necessarily dysfunctional, reasoning biases in individuals with low schizotypy. These reasoning biases seemed, in some ways, relatively immutable to stress in individuals endorsing high levels of positive schizotypal traits.