The Jumping-to-Conclusions Bias in New Religious Movements

The jumping-to-conclusions bias has not been examined in a new religious movement (NRM) group. Twenty-seven delusion-prone NRM individuals were compared with 25 individuals with psychotic disorders and 63 non-delusion-prone individuals on four probabilistic inference tasks, together with measures of psychotic symptoms and delusion proneness. The NRM individuals requested significantly less evidence when compared with the control individuals on both meaningful and nonmeaningful tasks. The NRM individuals requested significantly more evidence on a difficult meaningful task when compared with the individuals with psychotic disorders. A specific reasoning style but not a general reasoning style differentiates the NRM individuals from the individuals with psychotic disorders. These findings may be specific to NRM individuals and may not be generalized to other delusion-prone groups.