Jumping to conclusions and delusional ideation: A systematic review and meta-analysis across the psychosis continuum

Rose Doherty; Nathan Weber; Charley Hillier; Robert Ross; Ryan Balzan

doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102618

Jumping to conclusions and delusional ideation: A systematic review and meta-analysis across the psychosis continuum

Clin Psychol Rev. 2025 Jun 23:120:102618. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102618. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Rose Doherty¹, Nathan Weber², Charley Hillier², Robert Ross³, Ryan Balzan⁴

Affiliations

¹ College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia. Electronic address: rose.doherty@flinders.edu.au.
² College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia.
³ Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
⁴ College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia; Flinders Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, Adelaide 5042, SA, Australia.

PMID: 40592007
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102618

Abstract

We applied a two-stage Bayesian analysis to examine the relationship between the jumping to conclusions (JTC) bias (measured on the beads, box, fishing, and/or survey tasks) and delusional ideation (measured on the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory or the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences). MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and five previous JTC reviews were searched for eligible studies published between 1988 and December 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality assessment tool. Forty-two studies (n = 7604) were identified as meeting inclusion criteria, with four subgroups: general population (n = 7538), psychosis with current delusions (n = 449), psychosis without current delusions (n = 29), and clinical control (n = 77). Our first analysis presented a meta-analysis of correlations between delusional ideation and JTC. Our second analysis presented a zero-inflated Poisson regression, assessing change in JTC across variable delusional ideation scores. Impact of data quality was assessed in both analyses. No meaningful relationships between JTC and delusional ideation were found in the full dataset or any subgroup, but the subgroup with current delusions showed a relatively greater JTC bias than the general population subgroup. Data-quality procedures did not impact results. Overall, results suggest that the JTC bias is not related to delusional ideation, or indexes of delusional ideation and/or JTC used in this meta-analysis are poor measures of these constructs. Our results did not assess delusional severity, thus interpretations in clinical populations are limited. PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42021266402.

Keywords: Cognitive bias; Delusional ideation; Delusions; Jumping to conclusions; Probabilistic reasoning; Psychosis.

Publication types

Review