Abstract

Background: Cognitive biases play an important role in the formation and maintenance of delusions. These biases are indicators of a weak reflective mind, or reduced engaging in reflective and deliberate reasoning. In three experiments, we tested whether a bias to accept non-sense statements as profound, treat metaphorical statements as literal, and suppress intuitive responses is related to psychotic-like experiences.Methods: We tested deliberate reasoning and psychotic-like experiences in the general population and in patients with a former psychotic episode. Deliberate reasoning was assessed with the bullshit receptivity scale, the ontological confabulation scale and the cognitive reflection test (CRT). We also measured algorithmic performance with the Berlin numeracy test and the wordsum test. Psychotic-like experiences were measured with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experience (CAPE-42) scale.Results: Psychotic-like experiences were positively correlated with a larger receptivity toward bullshit, more ontological confabulations, and also a lower score on the CRT but not with algorithmic task performance. In the patient group higher psychotic-like experiences significantly correlated with higher bullshit receptivity.Conclusion: Reduced deliberate reasoning may contribute to the formation of delusions, and be a general thinking bias largely independent of a person's general intelligence. Acceptance of bullshit may be facilitated the more positive symptoms a patient has, contributing to the maintenance of the delusions.

Highlights

  • Psychotic-like experiences (PLE) can be seen as an alteration in how one perceives and thinks about reality, and similar to delusions, which are a cardinal feature of psychosis, they present bizarre or abnormal thoughts and non-conventional logic

  • Prediction (i–ii): There was a significant positive correlation between CAPE-P and bullshit receptivity” (BR) score and CAPE-P and the Ontological confabulation (OC) score, (iii) but not between CAPE-P and the draws to decision score, i.e., the draws to decisions in the two rounds of the fish task was not related to the number of psychoticlike experiences

  • Prediction (iv–vi): There was no significant correlation between CAPE-P and Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) or CRT and BR score, but there was a significant negative correlation between CRT

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Most of us have had moments saying silent or aloud “how the . . . can you believe in this bullshit?” Is this person joking with me or is the person meaning it seriously? If it is the latter, should you worry? Given that psychotic symptoms are not just experienced by patients with a psychiatric disorder but are present in a larger portion of the general population would receptivity to bullshit be a cognitive marker for bizarre thoughts and non-conventional logic?We here investigated whether receptivity to bullshit, a tendency to confabulations, and a general reduction in cognitive reflection are positively associated with more psychotic-like experiences.A plethora of research has shown that mental disorders are related to failures in rationality (Zimbardo, 1999; Adams et al, 2016), i.e., knowledge of when and how to apply deliberate reasoning (Stanovich, 2009). Given that psychotic symptoms are not just experienced by patients with a psychiatric disorder but are present in a larger portion of the general population would receptivity to bullshit be a cognitive marker for bizarre thoughts and non-conventional logic?. PLE are qualitatively similar to Symptoms experienced by patients with psychosis but quantitatively less severe with lower frequency, intensity and persistence. These experiences occur in 5–8% of the general population (van Os et al, 2009), but among adolescents the incident rate is higher (Scott et al, 2008; van Os et al, 2009; Kelleher and Cannon, 2011). We tested whether a bias to accept non-sense statements as profound, treat metaphorical statements as literal, and suppress intuitive responses is related to psychotic-like experiences

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call