Unidirectional rating scales overestimate the illusory causation phenomenon

David Ng · Jessica C. Lee · Peter F. Lovibond

6 citations0/0 files storedQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference Free Will and Agency

Abstract

Illusory causation is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly perceive a causal relationship between a cue and outcome even though the contingency between them is actually zero. Illusory causation studies typically use a unidirectional causal rating scale, where one endpoint refers to no relationship and the other to a strongly positive causal relationship. This procedure may bias mean causal ratings in a positive direction, either by censoring negative ratings or by discouraging participants from giving the normative rating of zero which is at the bottom extreme of the scale. To test this possibility, we ran two experiments that directly compared the magnitude of causal illusions when assessed with a unidirectional (zero-positive) versus a bidirectional (negative-zero-positive) rating scale. Experiment 1 used high cue and outcome densities (both 75%), whereas Experiment 2 used neutral cue and outcome densities (both 50%). Across both experiments, we observed a larger illusory causation effect in the unidirectional group compared with the bidirectional group, despite both groups experiencing the same training trials. The causal illusions in Experiment 2 were observed despite participants accurately learning the conditional probabilities of the outcome occurring in both the presence and absence of the cue, suggesting that the illusion is driven by the inability to accurately integrate conditional probabilities to infer causal relationships. Our results indicate that although illusory causation is a genuine phenomenon that is observable with either a undirectional or a bidirectional rating scale, its magnitude may be overestimated when unidirectional rating scales are used.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

1979Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?2001Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation 1976Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments 1965Judgment of contingency between responses and outcomes.1965The display of information and the judgment of contingency.2015Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced 1980The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives.1990Detecting Response-Outcome Relations: Toward an Understanding of the Causal Texture of the Environment

Cited by

2024Individual differences in the evolution of causal illusions 2025Reducing the causal illusion: a question of motivation or of information?2025The role of prior beliefs in causal illusions

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.