Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25616503›Full record

SynthesisSchizophrenia bulletin2015

Jumping to Conclusions About the Beads Task? A Meta-analysis of Delusional Ideation and Data-Gathering.

Robert Malcolm Ross, Ryan McKay, Max Coltheart, Robyn Langdon

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04752449 (Virtual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04752449 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Virtual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of TorontoRan2021 to 2025Enrolled70ConditionsPsychotic Disorders, SchizophreniaArmsVirtual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Mend the Gap: Online User-Led Adjuvant Treatment for Psychosis: A Systematic Review on Recent Findings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Active information sampling in health and disease.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Review
  15. Paranoia and Data-Gathering Biases in Autism.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Robert Malcolm RossARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; robross45@yahoo.com.au.
Ryan McKayARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Max ColtheartARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia;
Robyn LangdonARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been claimed that delusional and delusion-prone individuals have a tendency to gather less data before forming beliefs. Most of the evidence for this "jumping to conclusions" (JTC) bias comes from studies using the "beads task" data-gathering paradigm. However, the evidence for the JTC bias is mixed. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of individual participant data from 38 clinical and nonclinical samples (n = 2,237) to investigate the relationship between data gathering in the beads task (using the "draws to decision" measure) and delusional ideation (as indexed by the "Peters et al Delusions Inventory"; PDI). We found that delusional ideation is negatively associated with data gathering (r(s) = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, -0.03]) and that there is heterogeneity in the estimated effect sizes (Q-stat P = .03, I(2) = 33). Subgroup analysis revealed that the negative association is present when considering the 23 samples (n = 1,754) from the large general population subgroup alone (r(s) = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, -0.02]) but not when considering the 8 samples (n = 262) from the small current delusions subgroup alone (r(s) = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.07]). These results provide some provisional support for continuum theories of psychosis and cognitive models that implicate the JTC bias in the formation and maintenance of delusions.

Indexed as

AdultDelusionsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychotic DisordersThinkingYoung Adultbeads taskbiasdelusionjumping to conclusionsmeta-analysisschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID25616503
PMCPMC4535629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.