ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Instructing participants about the random assignment of patients to treated and non-treated conditions does not diminish causal illusions.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People sometimes perceive causal relationships between non-contingent events. When having to assess the contingency between a putative cause and an outcome, it is vital to ensure that all other causal forces are held constant whether the studied cause is present or not. Nevertheless, a recent work suggested that, in conventional contingency learning scenarios, people do not necessarily assume that it is the case. A possible contributing factor to this asset is that instructions in contingency learning tasks do not typically clarify this point. In two experiments, we manipulated the task instructions so that only half of the participants were explicitly informed that the introduction of the putative cause was randomly decided for each trial. The second experiment further instructed participants in the implications of random assignment regarding the control of alternative causes. Results of both experiments indicated that the manipulation of the instructions had no impact on the strength of causal illusions (minimum
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.