Illusory Correlations: A Simple Associative Algorithm Provides a Convergent Account of Seemingly Divergent Paradigms

Abstract

Subjective correlations that exaggerate objectively presented contingencies are usually referred to as illusory correlations. An empirical review reveals 3 major paradigms of illusory correlations, drawing on 2 prominent but conflicting gestalt principles, congruency and distinctiveness. Congruency accounts for expectancy-based illusory correlations, whereas distinctiveness is relevant to illusions resulting from the asymmetry of positive and negative attributes and from infrequency. The congruency principle implies a processing advantage for expected stimuli, whereas distinctiveness assumes enhanced processing of unexpected events. This apparent conflict is resolved, and an integrative account is offered within a simple connectionist framework (BIAS) of correlation assessment. The basic algorithm is outlined, empirical findings are simulated, new theoretical distinctions are introduced, and analogies to related paradigms are explained.

Pseudocontingencies: An integrative account of an intriguing cognitive illusion.

“…PC effects obtained under such task conditions are clearly distinct from the large number of studies on contingency assessment and illusory correlations (Allan, 1993;Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984;Crocker, 1981;DeHouwer & Beckers, 2002;Fiedler, 2000;Hamilton, 1981;White, 1995), because the successive presentation format rules out the computation of contingencies proper.…”

“…It is no exaggeration to claim that the ability to assess contingencies is crucial for adaptive learning and behavior, for rational action and decision making, and -ultimately -for survival in a risky and uncertain world. Thus, contingency assessment is commonly considered a major module of inductive intelligence, as stated in several pertinent reviews (Allan, 1993;Allan, Hannah, Crump & Siegel, 2008;Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984;Arieh & Algom, 2002;Crocker, 1981;Fiedler, 2000).…”

“…It is no exaggeration to claim that the ability to assess contingencies is crucial for adaptive learning and behavior, for rational action and decision making, and -ultimately -for survival in a risky and uncertain world. Thus, contingency assessment is commonly considered a major module of inductive intelligence, as stated in several pertinent reviews (Allan, 1993;Allan, Hannah, Crump & Siegel, 2008;Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984;Arieh & Algom, 2002;Crocker, 1981;Fiedler, 2000).In this article, we present an alternative perspective on inductive learning, drawing on pseudocontingencies rather than contingencies proper. The major claim we will put forward is that when organisms figure out correlations or contingencies (in case of nominally scaled variables), they often engage in a cognitive inference process that is sensitive to something different from a genuine correlation.…”

Evidence for an illusion of causality when using the Implicit Association Test to measure learning

“…Therefore, their occasional coincidences are very salient, which boosts learning about the relationship between the minority group and the negative behaviors. More recent accounts differ in the details, but they also address the role of learning processes (e.g., Fiedler, 2000;Sherman, Kruschke, Sherman, Percy, Petrocelli, & Conrey, 2009). …”

A perspective on the health care expenditures for defensive medicine

“…Extrapolating this value to the count of all employed registrars and residents in orthopedics and trauma surgery in Austria would result in a hardly conceivable 29,670 malpractice liability appeals to patient advocacies, insurance companies, and civil courts per year exclusively for these two specializations. Even though malpractice activity development seems to be rather stable and the patient compensation rate is still proportionally low when compared to the total annual count of treatments performed in Austrian hospitals, both medical and legal representatives identify a substantial demand for either defensive or aggressive strategies to control putative misconduct of the respective counterpart: availability and affect heuristics [49], illusory correlation [10], and correspondence bias [12] provide effectual explanations for the inconsistent observation that rational considerations are replaced by systematic misjudgment. In the present context, the protagonists of medical, legislative, and jurisdictive systems tend to rationalize deficient behavior ex post and establish their argument based on information that is accessible only in retrospect [11].…”