LAUSR

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Quality of reasoning within non-clinical paranoia and mental simulation of future paranoia themed events was investigated by use of a simulation task to determine whether paranoid individuals would be restricted or more adept at reasoning about paranoia relevant material in comparison to a social anxiety group and a group with low paranoia and social anxiety. METHOD Participants (N = 63) were divided into the three groups based on paranoia and social anxiety scores. They were presented with the beginning and end of an imaginary situation and were asked to describe, step-by-step, what they imagined would happen between those two points. They were also administered a beads task to evaluate the jumping to conclusion decision making bias. RESULTS The prediction of more adept reasoning was not supported for paranoia. However, the social anxiety comparison group on average better simulated a scenario with congruent (socially anxious) thematic content compared to ones with non-congruent content. Further, in an exploratory analysis, jumping to conclusions bias was found to be positively related to goodness of simulation for paranoia themed scenarios within the paranoia group. LIMITATIONS Study groups were relatively small and so power was an issue. CONCLUSION The results are discussed in the context of the sometimes paradoxical findings in the area of cognitive biases and paranoia.