Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:14:47.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Quantitative Method of Studying Delusional Intensity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

L. R. C. Haward*
Affiliation:
Graylingwell Hospital, Chichester, Sussex

Extract

Despite the important place occupied by delusional thinking in psychiatric theory, comparatively little experimental work has been undertaken on this particular form of thought disorder. This is perhaps surprising considering its relevance to reasoning and belief as a social process, the role of the delusion in differential diagnosis, and the number of deluded patients available for investigation. Most investigators have been concerned with the content of delusions rather than their force, for the type of delusion has an undoubted influence on behaviour—quite clearly the patient with grandiose delusions acts differently from the paranoid individual; nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that the type of delusion reflects the individual's social history rather than the nature or degree of his psychopathology. More relevant to the latter is the degree of belief expressed by the patient in his delusions, the transitory (and malleable) ideas of an early depressive illness often contrasting with the implacable beliefs found in a condition of chronic melancholia. Some longitudinal studies have been undertaken recently in which the degree of delusional belief has been examined in terms of its resistance to manipulation, and this avenue of approach offers an extremely valuable scale of assessment of the individual psychiatric patient.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1964 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayley, N. (1928). Psychol. Monog., 40, 95.Google Scholar
Darrow, C. W. (1936). Psychol. Bull., 73, 73.Google Scholar
Duffy, E. J. (1946). J. exp. Psychol., 36, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dysinoer, D. W. A. (1931). Psychol. Monog., 41, 19.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1960). Brit. J. med. Psychol., 33, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1961). J. Ment. Sci., 108, 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1962). Brit. J. med Psychol., 35, 225.Google Scholar
Haward, L. R. C. (1964). Brit. J. Psychiat. (in press).Google Scholar
Jaffe, J. (1958). Psychiatry, 21, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakosina, N. D. (1959). Zh. Nevropal. i Psikhiat., 58, 1477.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. J., Sainsbury, P., and Collins, J. G. (1962). J. Ment. Sci., 108, 747.Google Scholar
Martin, I. (1960). In Eysenck, H. J., Handbook of Abnormal Psychology. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Patterson, E. (1930). Psychol. Monog., 40, 95.Google Scholar
Saunders, L., and Fleming, S. (1957). Mathematics and Statistics. London: Pharmaceutical Society, p. 154.Google Scholar
Smith, W. (1922). Measurement of Emotion. New York: Harcourt Brace.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.