The relationship between inferential confusion, obsessive compulsiveness, schizotypy and dissociation in a non-clinical sample.

Objective: Inferential confusion is a reasoning process that has been theoretically and empirically linked to obsessive-compulsiveness in the literature. Little is known about the mechanisms by which some people become more or less inferentially confused and in what contexts. Dissociation has been postulated as a process related to inferential confusion, yet findings to date are limited and have been inconclusive. There is preliminary evidence to support the notion that inferential confusion may also be relevant in other belief disorders such as delusional disorder but this has not received much empirical attention. The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between inferential confusion, obsessive-compulsiveness, dissociation and schizotypy in a non-clinical sample. Design: Participants (n=107) from the general population took part in a within-participants experimental study, designed to assess the propensity to experience inferential confusion in obsessive-compulsive and delusion-relevant situations and in a threat-neutral situation. Participants also completed self-report measures of inferential confusion, obsessive-compulsiveness, dissociation and schizotypy. Results: As expected, inferential confusion, obsessive-compulsiveness, dissociation and schizotypy were all significantly positively correlated with each other. Propensity to experience inferential confusion was only related to measures of inferential confusion, obsessive-compulsiveness, schizotypy, and dissociation in the context of the delusion-relevant scenario. Conclusions: There is little evidence linking measures of obsessive-compulsiveness, dissociation and schizotypy with experimental measures of inferential confusion. However, there is evidence that these measures relate to self-report measures of inferential confusion. The implications of this are discussed in terms of understanding inferential confusion as a process. However, an alternative explanation for the findings lies in the critique of the methodology of the experimental task. Inferential confusion still requires experimental investigation that can be replicated