Jumping to conclusions and bias against disconfirmatory evidence are two cognitive biases common in people with psychotic-like experiences and psychosis. However, many participants show comprehension problems doing traditional tasks; new paradigms with additional applied scenarios are thus needed. A large MTurk community sample (N = 1422) was recruited and subdivided into participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences (at least 2 SD above the mean, n = 79) and participants with low levels of psychotic-like experiences (maximum 0.5 SD above the mean, n = 1110), based on the positive subscale of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). In the context of a judge-advisor system, participants made an initial estimate and then received advice that was either confirmatory or disconfirmatory. Participants then gave a new, possibly revised estimate and were allowed to seek additional advice. Participants with high levels of psychotic-like experiences gave their final assessment after receiving significantly less advice and were significantly more confident in their decision than participants with low psychotic-like experiences, in line with previous studies on jumping to conclusions and overconfidence. Contrary to the hypothesis and earlier studies, however, no deficit in belief revision was found. In fact, participants with high psychotic-like experiences weighted advice significantly higher in the condition with disconfirmatory advice, but only for the first advice they received. The increased weighting of a single piece of disconfirmatory advice can be explained by the hypersalience of evidence-hypothesis matches theory, according to which more weight is attached to the most recently available information.

中文翻译：

---

建议权重作为一种新的衡量有精神病样经历的人的信念灵活性的方法

妄下结论和对不确定性证据的偏见是精神病患者和精神病患者常见的两种认知偏见。然而，许多参与者在执行传统任务时表现出理解问题；因此需要具有附加应用场景的新范式。招募了一个大型 MTurk 社区样本 (N = 1422) 并将其细分为具有高水平精神病体验的参与者（至少高于平均值 2 SD，n = 79）和具有低水平精神病体验的参与者（最大 0.5 SD 高于平均值，n = 1110），基于心理体验社区评估 (CAPE) 的正分量表。在法官顾问系统的背景下，参与者做出初步估计，然后收到确认或不确认的建议。然后参与者给出了一个新的，可能会修改估计数，并被允许寻求额外的建议。与精神病样经历低的参与者相比，精神病样经历水平高的参与者在接受的建议少得多后给出了他们的最终评估，并且对自己的决定更有信心，这与之前关于急于下结论和过度自信的研究一致。然而，与假设和早期研究相反，没有发现信念修正的缺陷。事实上，具有高度精神病样经历的参与者在具有不确定性建议的情况下对建议的加权显着更高，但仅限于他们收到的第一个建议。单条否定性建议的权重增加可以通过证据假设匹配理论的高度显着性来解释，