IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsyxx/v10y2018i4p319-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are delusions beliefs? A qualitative examination of the doxastic features of delusions

Author

Listed:
  • Huw Green
  • Lori Hauser
  • Vitaliy Troyakov

Abstract

There is extensive debate about whether delusions are best considered beliefs. This debate is seldom addressed by clinicians though it bears on how delusions are conceived, managed and treated. Little empirical work exists to address this issue. This study explored whether individuals with first hand experiences of delusions spoke about those ideas in ways that were consistent with their being beliefs. Seventeen individuals identified as experiencing, or having experienced, delusions were recruited for a semi-structured interview. Responses to the interview were read and coded by two raters in terms of criteria relevant to whether a mental state is a belief. The majority of delusions examined here were spoken about as though they were beliefs. Most participants believed other things that were consistent with the delusions, attempted to defend their delusions with evidence, had frequently acted on their delusions and provided reasons for holding them. However, there was some variation in the extent to which this was the case. This study provides tentative support for the claim that some delusions are beliefs.

Suggested Citation

  • Huw Green & Lori Hauser & Vitaliy Troyakov, 2018. "Are delusions beliefs? A qualitative examination of the doxastic features of delusions," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 319-328, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:319-328
    DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2018.1528298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17522439.2018.1528298
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17522439.2018.1528298?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:rpsyxx:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:319-328. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPSY20 .

    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.