File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Reasoning and delusions

TitleReasoning and delusions
Authors
Issue Date1997
PublisherRoyal College of Psychiatrists. The Journal's web site is located at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/
Citation
British Journal Of Psychiatry, 1997, v. 170 MAY, p. 398-405 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Delusions are assumed to reflect disordered reasoning, but with little empirical support. We attempted to study this in 16 relatively intelligent deluded patients and 16 normal volunteers. Method: Standard tests were used which required subjects to choose between logically fallacious and valid responses, both of which were plausible. The tests were: (a) conditional statements (if... then), (b) syllogisms (e.g. no A are C, some B are C, some C are not A), and (c) judgements of probability. All three tasks incorporated neutral and emotive content. Results: Both normal and deluded subjects frequently made logical errors. With conditionals, deluded subjects tended to endorse fallacies more often than normal controls and this was accentuated when the content was emotive. Similarly with syllogisms, the effect of emotional content on the endorsement of unbelievable responses was increased slightly in the deluded group. Finally, the deluded patients showed a trend to be test prone to the conjunction fallacy than normals, suggesting less reliance on existing schema. Conclusions: Differences in reasoning between deluded patients and controls are surprisingly small. Patients are somewhat more prone to endorse invalid or fallacious responses, especially when emotive themes are involved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/81456
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 7.06
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.674
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKemp, Ren_HK
dc.contributor.authorChua, Sen_HK
dc.contributor.authorMcKenna, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorDavid, Aen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T08:17:58Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T08:17:58Z-
dc.date.issued1997en_HK
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal Of Psychiatry, 1997, v. 170 MAY, p. 398-405en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0007-1250en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/81456-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Delusions are assumed to reflect disordered reasoning, but with little empirical support. We attempted to study this in 16 relatively intelligent deluded patients and 16 normal volunteers. Method: Standard tests were used which required subjects to choose between logically fallacious and valid responses, both of which were plausible. The tests were: (a) conditional statements (if... then), (b) syllogisms (e.g. no A are C, some B are C, some C are not A), and (c) judgements of probability. All three tasks incorporated neutral and emotive content. Results: Both normal and deluded subjects frequently made logical errors. With conditionals, deluded subjects tended to endorse fallacies more often than normal controls and this was accentuated when the content was emotive. Similarly with syllogisms, the effect of emotional content on the endorsement of unbelievable responses was increased slightly in the deluded group. Finally, the deluded patients showed a trend to be test prone to the conjunction fallacy than normals, suggesting less reliance on existing schema. Conclusions: Differences in reasoning between deluded patients and controls are surprisingly small. Patients are somewhat more prone to endorse invalid or fallacious responses, especially when emotive themes are involved.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherRoyal College of Psychiatrists. The Journal's web site is located at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Psychiatryen_HK
dc.titleReasoning and delusionsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0007-1250&volume=170&spage=398&epage=405&date=1997&atitle=Reasoning+and+delusionsen_HK
dc.identifier.emailChua, S: sechua@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChua, S=rp00438en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid9307686-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0030958674en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros25227en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030958674&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume170en_HK
dc.identifier.issueMAYen_HK
dc.identifier.spage398en_HK
dc.identifier.epage405en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:A1997WY05900003-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKemp, R=35617309900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChua, S=7201550427en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMcKenna, P=7201921663en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDavid, A=7402606754en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats