Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences

Jakob Scheunemann; Łukasz Gawęda; Klaus-Michael Reininger; Lena Jelinek; Helmut Hildebrandt; Steffen Moritz

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016

Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences

Standard

Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences. / Scheunemann, Jakob; Gawęda, Łukasz; Reininger, Klaus-Michael ; Jelinek, Lena; Hildebrandt, Helmut; Moritz, Steffen.

In: SCHIZOPHR RES, Vol. 216, 02.2020, p. 129-137.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Scheunemann, J, Gawęda, Ł, Reininger, K-M , Jelinek, L, Hildebrandt, H & Moritz, S 2020, 'Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences', SCHIZOPHR RES, vol. 216, pp. 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016

APA

Scheunemann, J., Gawęda, Ł., Reininger, K-M., Jelinek, L., Hildebrandt, H., & Moritz, S. (2020). Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences. SCHIZOPHR RES, 216, 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016

Vancouver

Scheunemann J, Gawęda Ł, Reininger K-M , Jelinek L, Hildebrandt H, Moritz S. Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences. SCHIZOPHR RES. 2020 Feb;216:129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016

Bibtex

@article{97fd7dace8ab4c7f9931faf7eaaef8b9,

title = "Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences",

abstract = "Jumping to conclusions and bias against disconfirmatory evidence are two cognitive biases common in people with psychotic-like experiences and psychosis. However, many participants show comprehension problems doing traditional tasks; new paradigms with additional applied scenarios are thus needed. A large MTurk community sample (N = 1422) was recruited and subdivided into participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences (at least 2 SD above the mean, n = 79) and participants with low levels of psychotic-like experiences (maximum 0.5 SD above the mean, n = 1110), based on the positive subscale of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). In the context of a judge-advisor system, participants made an initial estimate and then received advice that was either confirmatory or disconfirmatory. Participants then gave a new, possibly revised estimate and were allowed to seek additional advice. Participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences gave their final assessment after receiving significantly less advice and were significantly more confident in their decision than participants with low psychotic-like experiences, in line with previous studies on jumping to conclusions and overconfidence. Contrary to the hypothesis and earlier studies, however, no deficit in belief revision was found. In fact, participants with high psychotic-like experiences weighted advice significantly higher in the condition with disconfirmatory advice, but only for the first advice they received. The increased weighting of a single piece of disconfirmatory advice can be explained by the hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches theory, according to which more weight is attached to the most recently available information.",

author = "Jakob Scheunemann and {\L}ukasz Gaw{\c e}da and Klaus-Michael Reininger and Lena Jelinek and Helmut Hildebrandt and Steffen Moritz",

year = "2020",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016",

language = "English",

volume = "216",

pages = "129--137",

journal = "SCHIZOPHR RES",

issn = "0920-9964",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences

AU - Scheunemann, Jakob

AU - Gawęda, Łukasz

AU - Reininger, Klaus-Michael

AU - Jelinek, Lena

AU - Hildebrandt, Helmut

AU - Moritz, Steffen

PY - 2020/2

Y1 - 2020/2

N2 - Jumping to conclusions and bias against disconfirmatory evidence are two cognitive biases common in people with psychotic-like experiences and psychosis. However, many participants show comprehension problems doing traditional tasks; new paradigms with additional applied scenarios are thus needed. A large MTurk community sample (N = 1422) was recruited and subdivided into participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences (at least 2 SD above the mean, n = 79) and participants with low levels of psychotic-like experiences (maximum 0.5 SD above the mean, n = 1110), based on the positive subscale of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). In the context of a judge-advisor system, participants made an initial estimate and then received advice that was either confirmatory or disconfirmatory. Participants then gave a new, possibly revised estimate and were allowed to seek additional advice. Participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences gave their final assessment after receiving significantly less advice and were significantly more confident in their decision than participants with low psychotic-like experiences, in line with previous studies on jumping to conclusions and overconfidence. Contrary to the hypothesis and earlier studies, however, no deficit in belief revision was found. In fact, participants with high psychotic-like experiences weighted advice significantly higher in the condition with disconfirmatory advice, but only for the first advice they received. The increased weighting of a single piece of disconfirmatory advice can be explained by the hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches theory, according to which more weight is attached to the most recently available information.

AB - Jumping to conclusions and bias against disconfirmatory evidence are two cognitive biases common in people with psychotic-like experiences and psychosis. However, many participants show comprehension problems doing traditional tasks; new paradigms with additional applied scenarios are thus needed. A large MTurk community sample (N = 1422) was recruited and subdivided into participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences (at least 2 SD above the mean, n = 79) and participants with low levels of psychotic-like experiences (maximum 0.5 SD above the mean, n = 1110), based on the positive subscale of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). In the context of a judge-advisor system, participants made an initial estimate and then received advice that was either confirmatory or disconfirmatory. Participants then gave a new, possibly revised estimate and were allowed to seek additional advice. Participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences gave their final assessment after receiving significantly less advice and were significantly more confident in their decision than participants with low psychotic-like experiences, in line with previous studies on jumping to conclusions and overconfidence. Contrary to the hypothesis and earlier studies, however, no deficit in belief revision was found. In fact, participants with high psychotic-like experiences weighted advice significantly higher in the condition with disconfirmatory advice, but only for the first advice they received. The increased weighting of a single piece of disconfirmatory advice can be explained by the hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches theory, according to which more weight is attached to the most recently available information.

U2 - 10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016

DO - 10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31924370

VL - 216

SP - 129

EP - 137

JO - SCHIZOPHR RES

JF - SCHIZOPHR RES

SN - 0920-9964

ER -