TY - JOUR
T1 - Conditional Reasoning in Asperger's Syndrome and Depersonalization Disorder
AU - Lawrence, Emma Jane
AU - Dumigan, Rachael
AU - Schoenberg, Poppy
AU - Mauricio, Sierra
AU - Murphy, Declan G.
AU - David, Anthony S.
PY - 2012/9
Y1 - 2012/9
N2 - Conditional reasoning premises can be systematically manipulated to elicit specific response patterns. This is useful for investigating the reasoning style of people who report clinical symptoms. We administered a standardized conditional reasoning task to 16 participants with a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome (AS), 16 participants with a diagnosis of depersonalization disorder (DPD), and 32 intelligence-quotient-matched controls. Premises were manipulated for a) context, with some being embedded within extra statements, and b) content, neutral or emotional. Both the AS and DPD participants were less likely to incorporate exceptions to the given premises than the controls, indicating difficulties with mental flexibility, although this effect was less marked in the DPD group. It seems the AS participants were also less influenced than the controls by statements that highlight possible alternative consequences. However, this effect was less robust than that observed with statements detailing exceptions, suggesting it may be because of general problems with executive function rather than difficulties in processing contextual information. We did not observe the expected difference between the DPD participants and the controls when reasoning with emotional premises. Overall, these data suggest that the DPD and AS participants have distinct reasoning styles, which may be of use for interventions based on cognitive change.
AB - Conditional reasoning premises can be systematically manipulated to elicit specific response patterns. This is useful for investigating the reasoning style of people who report clinical symptoms. We administered a standardized conditional reasoning task to 16 participants with a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome (AS), 16 participants with a diagnosis of depersonalization disorder (DPD), and 32 intelligence-quotient-matched controls. Premises were manipulated for a) context, with some being embedded within extra statements, and b) content, neutral or emotional. Both the AS and DPD participants were less likely to incorporate exceptions to the given premises than the controls, indicating difficulties with mental flexibility, although this effect was less marked in the DPD group. It seems the AS participants were also less influenced than the controls by statements that highlight possible alternative consequences. However, this effect was less robust than that observed with statements detailing exceptions, suggesting it may be because of general problems with executive function rather than difficulties in processing contextual information. We did not observe the expected difference between the DPD participants and the controls when reasoning with emotional premises. Overall, these data suggest that the DPD and AS participants have distinct reasoning styles, which may be of use for interventions based on cognitive change.
U2 - 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318266ba2b
DO - 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318266ba2b
M3 - Article
SN - 0022-3018
VL - 200
SP - 796
EP - 800
JO - Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
JF - Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
IS - 9
ER -