ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2025
Individual differences in the evolution of causal illusions.
Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Instructing participants about the random assignment of patients to treated and non-treated conditions does not diminish causal illusions.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Presentation format influences the strength of causal illusions.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Individual differences in the evolution of causal illusions.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this research, we investigated individual differences in the formation and persistence of causal illusions. In a re-analysis of existing data, we identified two clusters of participants - persistent and adjusting - based on their trajectories in learning from repeated exposure to null contingencies. The persistent cluster maintained stable causal illusions, while the adjusting cluster demonstrated a reduction over time. This re-analysis provided a nuanced understanding of individual differences in causal learning, emphasizing the differential role of probability estimations in predicting causal judgements. These findings were replicated in a subsequent study, highlighting the robustness of the identified effects. In a pre-registered study, we extended the paradigm to include a second phase (active phase) to assess how individual differences in causal illusion trajectories in the passive phase would manifest when participants had agency in the information gathering process. The results were consistent with those of the two previous studies and confirmed our primary hypothesis that the adjusting cluster would exhibit a lower tendency to introduce the candidate cause on learning trials, and would, therefore, observe a higher frequency of cause-absent trials. Together, these studies provide comprehensive insights into the underpinnings of causal illusion development and persistence, potentially informing de-biasing interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.