@article{ref1,
title="Delusion-proneness or miscomprehension? A re-examination of the jumping-to-conclusions bias",
journal="Australian journal of psychology",
year="2012",
author="Balzan, Ryan and Delfabbro, Paul H. and Galletly, Cherrie",
volume="64",
number="2",
pages="100-107",
abstract="Previous research has consistently shown that individuals with delusions typically exhibit a jumping-to-conclusions (JTC) bias when administrated the probabilistic reasoning 'beads task' (i.e., decisions made on limited evidence and/or decisions over-adjusted in light of disconfirming evidence). However, recent work in this area has indicated that a lack of comprehension of the task may be confounding this finding. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the influence of task administration, delusion-proneness, and miscomprehension on the elucidation of the JTC bias. A total of 92 undergraduate university students were divided into one of two task conditions (i.e., non-computerised and computerised) and were further identified as either delusion-prone or non-delusion-prone and as comprehending or non-comprehending the task. Overall, 25% of the sample demonstrated a JTC bias, and just over half made illogical responses consistent with a failure to comprehend the task. Qualitative evidence of comprehension revealed that these 'illogical responses' were being driven by a misunderstanding of task instructions. The way the task was administrated and levels of delusion-proneness did not significantly influence JTC. However, miscomprehending participants were significantly more likely to exhibit the bias than those who did comprehend. These results suggest that miscomprehension rather than delusion-proneness may be driving the JTC bias, and that future research should include measures of miscomprehension.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0004-9530",
doi="10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00032.x",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00032.x"
}