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

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.