restregister.blogg.se

Our aim in this study was to examine experiential and rational thinking in relation to persecutory thoughts specifically. Pacini and Epstein, 1999 Wolfradt et al., 1999 Aarnio and Lindeman, 2005), meaning that different combinations of the two styles can be used by individuals.

It is of note for establishing the independence of rational and experiential styles that they typically do not correlate with each other (e.g. Pacini and Epstein, 1999 Marks et al., 2008 Witteman et al., 2009). The results indicate similar small positive correlations of the two thinking styles to the different personality traits, except for neuroticism for which experiential reasoning has not been found to be associated while rational thinking is typically inversely correlated (e.g.

The thinking styles have also been studied in relation to the ‘Big Five’ personality traits ( McCrae and Costa, 1987). Wolfradt et al., 1999 Aarnio and Lindeman, 2005 Genovese, 2005 Marks et al., 2008). Of relevance to the current investigation, experiential thinking has been modestly positively correlated with the occurrence of paranormal and superstitious beliefs and schizotypal traits, with rational thinking showing an opposite pattern (e.g. The Rational Experiential Inventory (REI) has rarely been examined in relation to psychiatric problems, and has typically been employed in studies of students. ‘I have no problem thinking things through carefully’ ‘Using logic usually works well for me in figuring out problems in my life’) reasoning has been developed ( Epstein et al., 1996 Pacini and Epstein, 1999). ‘I believe in trusting my hunches’, ‘I like to rely on my intuitive impressions’) and rational (e.g. Garety and Freeman, 1999 Kapur, 2003 Freeman, 2007 Bentall et al., 2009 Ben-Zeev et al., 2010).Ī self-report questionnaire of experiential (e.g. This clinical impression is consistent with theoretical and empirical work indicating that individuals with delusions often need to make decisions about confusing and ambiguous experiences, that they have a tendency to jump to conclusions, and anxiety is a predictor of paranoid thought occurrence (e.g. Individuals are closely following their anxious physiological reactions, or gut feelings, when suspicious thoughts come to mind. It is our contention based upon clinical experience that quick decision-making based upon feelings of fear are a significant proximal contributor to the occurrence of paranoid thoughts. Emotional feelings are considered a key source of information for rapid judgements that can outweigh more considered evaluations, which is also seen in the related theoretical concepts of ‘risk-as-feeling’ and ‘the affect heuristic’ ( Loewenstein et al., 2001 Slovic et al., 2002). Experiential reasoning, in contrast to rational reasoning, is viewed as being closely tied to affect, and hence particularly compelling. The types of reasoning within dual process theory have been called experiential and rational (or intuitive and reflective). Two parallel systems are considered to underlie decision-making: an effortless, bounded rationality, rapid judgement and a slow, reflective, conscious, analytic approach (e.g. The process of making and revising judgements is of obvious importance in understanding delusional beliefs. The dual process theory of reasoning may provide a framework to contribute to the understanding of paranoid thinking.

Perceived reliance on intuition is associated with paranoid thinking, while perceived reliance on deliberation is associated with fewer such thoughts. Overall, the study provides rare evidence of self-reported general reasoning styles being associated with delusional ideation. There was no evidence of an interaction between neuroticism and experiential reasoning in the prediction of paranoia, but high experiential reasoning in the context of low rational reasoning was particularly associated with persecutory ideation. Persecutory ideation was also positively associated with neuroticism and negatively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Persecutory ideation was independently associated with greater use of experiential reasoning and less use of rational reasoning. Five hundred individuals recruited from the general population completed self-report assessments of current persecutory ideation, general reasoning styles and personality traits. Our main aim was to examine for the first time the associations of persecutory thinking with experiential and rational thinking styles. Conversely, a failure to apply effortful analytic thinking may contribute to the persistence of such thoughts. Rapid intuitive hunches or gut feelings may be a compelling source of evidence for paranoid ideas.