Failure of hypothesis evaluation as a factor in delusional belief.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-20 DOI:10.1080/13546805.2021.1914016
Max Coltheart, Martin Davies
{"title":"Failure of hypothesis evaluation as a factor in delusional belief.","authors":"Max Coltheart,&nbsp;Martin Davies","doi":"10.1080/13546805.2021.1914016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In accounts of the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor in this theory has been referred to only in the most general terms, as a failure in the processes of hypothesis evaluation, with no attempt to characterise those processes in any detail. Coltheart and Davies ([2021]. How unexpected observations lead to new beliefs: A Peircean pathway. <i>Consciousness and Cognition</i>, <i>87</i>, 103037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103037) attempted such a characterisation, proposing a detailed eight-step model of how unexpected observations lead to new beliefs based on the concept of abductive inference as introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this paper, we apply that model to the explanation of various forms of delusional belief.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We provide evidence that in cases of delusion there is a specific failure of the seventh step in our model: the step at which predictions from (delusional) hypotheses are considered in the light of relevant evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor consists of a failure to reject hypotheses in the face of disconfirmatory evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":51277,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","volume":"26 4","pages":"213-230"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13546805.2021.1914016","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2021.1914016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Introduction: In accounts of the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor in this theory has been referred to only in the most general terms, as a failure in the processes of hypothesis evaluation, with no attempt to characterise those processes in any detail. Coltheart and Davies ([2021]. How unexpected observations lead to new beliefs: A Peircean pathway. Consciousness and Cognition, 87, 103037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103037) attempted such a characterisation, proposing a detailed eight-step model of how unexpected observations lead to new beliefs based on the concept of abductive inference as introduced by Charles Sanders Peirce.

Methods: In this paper, we apply that model to the explanation of various forms of delusional belief.

Results: We provide evidence that in cases of delusion there is a specific failure of the seventh step in our model: the step at which predictions from (delusional) hypotheses are considered in the light of relevant evidence.

Conclusions: In the two-factor theory of delusional belief, the second factor consists of a failure to reject hypotheses in the face of disconfirmatory evidence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
假设评估的失败是妄想信念的一个因素。
导言:在妄想信念的双因素理论中,这个理论中的第二个因素只是在最一般的术语中被提及,作为假设评估过程中的失败,没有试图在任何细节上描述这些过程。colheart and Davies[2021]。意想不到的观察如何导致新的信念:一条裴尔海之路。意识与认知,87,103037。https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2020.103037)尝试了这样一个特征,提出了一个详细的八步模型,该模型基于查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯引入的溯因推理概念,说明意外的观察如何导致新的信念。方法:在本文中,我们应用该模型来解释各种形式的妄想信念。结果:我们提供的证据表明,在妄想的情况下,我们的模型中有一个具体的第七步失败:根据相关证据考虑(妄想)假设的预测的步骤。结论:在妄想信念的双因素理论中,第二个因素包括在面对不证实的证据时不能拒绝假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (CNP) publishes high quality empirical and theoretical papers in the multi-disciplinary field of cognitive neuropsychiatry. Specifically the journal promotes the study of cognitive processes underlying psychological and behavioural abnormalities, including psychotic symptoms, with and without organic brain disease. Since 1996, CNP has published original papers, short reports, case studies and theoretical and empirical reviews in fields of clinical and cognitive neuropsychiatry, which have a bearing on the understanding of normal cognitive processes. Relevant research from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology and clinical populations will also be considered. There are no page charges and we are able to offer free color printing where color is necessary.
期刊最新文献
How disrupted interoception could lead to disturbances in perceptual reality monitoring. Can neurocognitive performance account for dimensional paranoid ideation? Conspiracy mentality in autistic and non-autistic individuals Pattern glare sensitivity distinguishes subclinical autism and schizotypy. Limited awareness of hallucinations in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1