An experimental investigation of odd beliefs: individual differences in non-normative belief conviction

Two competing theories for the endorsement of odd beliefs were tested within an experimental setting. After completing a pursuit rotor task and receiving either expectancy-confirming or disconfirming performance feedback, participants were asked to rate their conviction in a series of causal attributions that had been assessed by judges with regard to belief normativeness. The psychosis proneness scores of 163 (89 male and 74 female) college students were found to predict the concurrent endorsement of empirically defined abnormal/odd causal attributions, even after controlling for depression scores. However, conviction ratings were unrelated to both the endorsement of normal causal attributions and to the expectancy confirming/disconfirming nature of the performance feedback. The results demonstrate, within an analog experiment, the relative importance of individual differences in the endorsement of non-normative beliefs.