IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0034771.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Belief Revision and Delusions: How Do Patients with Schizophrenia Take Advice?

Author

Listed:
  • Mariia Kaliuzhna
  • Valérian Chambon
  • Nicolas Franck
  • Bérangère Testud
  • Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst

Abstract

The dominant cognitive model that accounts for the persistence of delusional beliefs in schizophrenia postulates that patients suffer from a general deficit in belief revision. It is generally assumed that this deficit is a consequence of impaired reasoning skills. However, the possibility that such inflexibility affects the entire system of a patient's beliefs has rarely been empirically tested. Using delusion-neutral material in a well-documented advice-taking task, the present study reports that patients with schizophrenia: 1) revise their beliefs, 2) take into account socially provided information to do so, 3) are not overconfident about their judgments, and 4) show less egocentric advice-discounting than controls. This study thus shows that delusional patients' difficulty in revising beliefs is more selective than had been previously assumed. The specificities of the task and the implications for a theory of delusion formation are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariia Kaliuzhna & Valérian Chambon & Nicolas Franck & Bérangère Testud & Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst, 2012. "Belief Revision and Delusions: How Do Patients with Schizophrenia Take Advice?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-10, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0034771
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034771
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034771&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0034771?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0034771. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.