Delusional Ideation, Jumping to Conclusions, and Conspiracist Beliefs: An Exploratory Study in a Non-Clinical Hong Kong Sample

Conspiracy beliefs have been linked to psychosis-like cognitive-perceptual traits, but less is known about whether they are associated with the jumping-to-conclusions (JTC) reasoning bias. This exploratory cross-sectional study examined whether delusional ideation and JTC were associated with conspiracist beliefs in a non-clinical convenience sample of 54 young people in Hong Kong (aged 13–26 years; mostly students). Participants completed a single-trial 60:40 beads task, the 21-item Peters et al. Delusions Inventory, and a 38-item Conspiracy Theory Questionnaire. Fewer draws to decision indicated stronger JTC. Delusional ideation was positively associated with conspiracist beliefs, r = .55, 95% CI [.33, .71], and was associated with 30% of the variance in conspiracist-belief scores. Draws to decision were not significantly correlated with conspiracist beliefs, r = .15, 95% CI [−.12, .41], or with delusional ideation, r = −.16, 95% CI [−.41, .11]. When both predictors were entered simultaneously, delusional ideation remained robustly associated with conspiracist beliefs, whereas a small positive coefficient for draws to decision (opposite in direction to the JTC hypothesis) was not robust across sensitivity analyses. Because the sample provided 80% power only for correlations of about .37 or larger, small-to-moderate associations involving JTC cannot be ruled out. The findings replicate the link between delusion-proneness and conspiracist belief but provide no evidence for an association between neutral probabilistic data gathering and conspiracist ideation. Larger preregistered studies using multiple reasoning tasks are needed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Psychological Reports
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941261502288
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Delusional Ideation, Jumping to Conclusions, and Conspiracist Beliefs: An Exploratory Study in a Non-Clinical Hong Kong Sample

Peter Yee Lap To, Angel Lee
1 links
Psychological Reports
Misinformation and Its Impacts
article

Delusional Ideation, Jumping to Conclusions, and Conspiracist Beliefs: An Exploratory Study in a Non-Clinical Hong Kong Sample

Peter Yee Lap To, Angel Lee
article en

Abstract

Conspiracy beliefs have been linked to psychosis-like cognitive-perceptual traits, but less is known about whether they are associated with the jumping-to-conclusions (JTC) reasoning bias. This exploratory cross-sectional study examined whether delusional ideation and JTC were associated with conspiracist beliefs in a non-clinical convenience sample of 54 young people in Hong Kong (aged 13–26 years; mostly students). Participants completed a single-trial 60:40 beads task, the 21-item Peters et al. Delusions Inventory, and a 38-item Conspiracy Theory Questionnaire. Fewer draws to decision indicated stronger JTC. Delusional ideation was positively associated with conspiracist beliefs, r = .55, 95% CI [.33, .71], and was associated with 30% of the variance in conspiracist-belief scores. Draws to decision were not significantly correlated with conspiracist beliefs, r = .15, 95% CI [−.12, .41], or with delusional ideation, r = −.16, 95% CI [−.41, .11]. When both predictors were entered simultaneously, delusional ideation remained robustly associated with conspiracist beliefs, whereas a small positive coefficient for draws to decision (opposite in direction to the JTC hypothesis) was not robust across sensitivity analyses. Because the sample provided 80% power only for correlations of about .37 or larger, small-to-moderate associations involving JTC cannot be ruled out. The findings replicate the link between delusion-proneness and conspiracist belief but provide no evidence for an association between neutral probabilistic data gathering and conspiracist ideation. Larger preregistered studies using multiple reasoning tasks are needed.

Psychological Reports
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK), University of Warwick (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Delusional Ideation, Jumping to Conclusions, and Conspiracist Beliefs: An Exploratory Study in a Non-Clinical Hong Kong Sample — Peter Yee Lap To, Angel Lee · Psychological Reports (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS