Illusory correlation is the process of detecting a relationship between variables (usually individuals, events, or actions) when none exists. A mistaken connection may be created because infrequent or novel occurrences are more prominent and, hence, attract one’s attention. It is different from the correlation fallacy.
Key features of illusory correlation include:
- Implicit Assumptions: Individuals often hold implicit attitudes that guide their expectations and interpretations.
- False Connections: Even in the absence of actual correlation, people can establish false correlations based on coincidental occurrences.
- Mental Shortcuts: As a mental shortcut, the brain sometimes links frequent events or distinctive information, leading to misconceptions.
They can involve reinforcement of stereotypes from coincidental or non-representative data, misattribution of cause and effect, substituting hidden assumptions for facts, and the overestimation of the frequency of co-occurring events, especially when they confirm existing expectations or beliefs.
Loren and Jean Chapman coined the term in the late 1960s to characterize people’s tendency to overestimate links between two groups when presented with distinctive and exceptional information. They used the notion to call into doubt claims of objective knowledge in clinical psychology by refuting many therapists’ frequently accepted Wheeler indicators for homosexuality in Rorschach tests.
Their study on the false associations between homosexuality and certain psychological profiles provides a classic example of how pre-existing beliefs and biases can lead to erroneous connections. The Chapmans’ work laid the groundwork for identifying the role of heuristics in the misperception of data, pointing toward a cognitive model of illusory correlation.
Real-World Illusory Correlation Examples
Superstitions commonly arise from illusory correlations, where an individual associates random events with their actions or external factors. A classic example is the full moon, which many believe to be tied to increases in bizarre behavior or unusual events.
This belief persists despite scientific studies that show no significant relationship between the full moon and human behavior. The pervasive nature of this superstition showcases how illusory correlations can embed themselves into cultural consciousness over time.
Ethnic and Social Group Prejudice
Illusory correlations also play a considerable role in shaping implicit biases and prejudices towards different ethnic and social groups. People may develop firm attitudes about a group based on a few isolated incidents, believing these instances are representative of the group as a whole.
This cognitive bias can contribute to stereotypes that unfairly label certain ethnicities as possessing particular traits, influencing how individuals perceive and interact with members of these groups.
David Hamilton and Robert Gifford ran a series of tests in 1976 to show how stereotypic beliefs about minorities can arise via spurious correlation processes. To test their theory, Hamilton and Gifford had research participants read a series of statements indicating good or bad behaviors assigned to either Group A (the majority) or Group B (the minority). Abstract groups were employed to ensure that previously existing stereotypes did not influence the outcomes. The majority of the sentences were related to Group A, whereas the remaining handful were associated with Group B.
Because each group had equal amounts of positive and negative behaviors, there was no discernible link between behaviors and group membership. According to the study’s findings, good, desired behaviors were not perceived as distinctive, therefore participants made proper associations. When distinctive, unpleasant behaviors were conveyed in phrases, participants exaggerated the extent to which the minority group exhibited the behaviors.
Role of Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias plays a crucial role in the phenomenon of illusory correlation. This cognitive bias leads people to focus on evidence that confirms their existing beliefs and ignore contradictory information. The selective gathering and interpretation of evidence solidify preconceived notions, often resulting in reinforced stereotypes and skewed decision-making.
When encountering new information, confirmation bias influences a person’s attention and memory recall. Beliefs are maintained or strengthened by acknowledging only supporting data. Injudicious interpretation of evidence can sway judgements, aligning them with one’s expectations rather than objective analysis.
When making decisions, individuals may unknowingly seek out information that justifies their initial hypothesis. Similarly, scientists or researchers might interpret results in a way that aligns with their hypotheses, possibly overlooking contrary data.
Patterns and Outcomes
Recognition of patterns is central to human cognition, but sometimes the mind constructs false connections, believing relationships exist between events when none do. This phenomenon often influences societal attitudes and personal beliefs, affecting how one interprets outcomes.
For instance, some people might incorrectly associate a shape they frequently encounter with specific outcomes, even if there is no causal relationship. Patterns in nature are often interpreted correctly, but misleading patterns can result from mental shortcuts that lead to erroneous conclusions.
Crime Rates and Perceived Relationships
In discussing crime rates and perceived causes, public perception can be skewed by illusory correlations. People might observe a reported crime involving individuals of a particular demographic and wrongly infer a pattern or link that suggests a higher propensity for crime within that group.
Such misinterpretations often overshadow actual statistical relationships, leading to widespread stereotypes that bear no connection to the real patterns of criminal behavior. The relationship between actual crime statistics and the patterns perceived by the public is frequently distorted by these cognitive biases.
Theoretical Explanations
The most common theories for illusory correlation involve psychological heuristics, which are information-processing shortcuts that underpin many human judgments. One of these is availability, or the ease with which an idea comes to mind.
The availability heuristic is commonly used to evaluate the likelihood or frequency of an event. This can lead to false connections since some pairs come to memory quickly and vividly despite their rarity.
Working Memory Capacity
In a 2011 experiment conducted by Andreas Eder, Klaus Fiedler, and Silke Hamm-Eder, the effects of working memory capacity on illusory correlations were examined. They first investigated individual differences in working memory before determining if they had any effect on the creation of illusory correlations. They discovered that people with better working memory capacity had a more positive attitude toward minority group members than people with lower working memory ability.
In a second experiment, the authors investigated the impact of working memory stress on illusory correlations. They found that a greater working memory load increased the frequency of false connections.
The experiment was primarily designed to assess working memory rather than substantial stimulus memory. This suggests that illusory associations developed due to inadequacies in central cognitive resources induced by working memory stress, rather than selective recall.
Developmental
In 2003, Kristen Johnson and Janis Jacobs conducted an experiment to determine how early in childhood people create illusory associations. Children in grades 2 and 5 were subjected to a standard illusory correlation experiment to determine whether negative characteristics were linked with the minority group. The study found that illusory correlations were exhibited by both groups.
A separate study by Caterina Primi and Franca Agnoli showed that children form false correlations. In their experiment, children in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7, as well as adults, examined the same illusory correlation paradigm. The study found that youngsters produced significant illusory associations, but they were weaker than those produced by adults.
In a second investigation, clusters of shapes of various colors were used. The construction of illusory correlations persisted, indicating that social inputs are not required to produce these correlations.
Learning Effects
The attention theory of learning asserts that aspects of majority groups are learned first, followed by features of minority groups. This leads to an attempt to identify the minority group from the majority, resulting in faster learning of these differences. According to the Attention hypothesis, instead of establishing a single stereotype about the minority group, two preconceptions are formed: one for the majority and one for the minority.
A study was undertaken in 2011 to see if increasing learning had any influence on illusory correlations. It was discovered that training people about illusory correlations resulted in a lower occurrence of illusory correlations.
References:
- Chapman, L (1967). Illusory correlation in observational report. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 6 (1): 151–155. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80066-5
- Chapman, Loren J. and Jean P. (1969). Illusory Correlation as an Obstacle to the Use of Valid Psychodiagnostic Signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 74 (3): 271–80. doi:10.1037/h0027592
- Eder, Andreas B.; Fiedler, Klaus; Hamm-Eder, Silke (2011). Illusory correlations revisited: The role of pseudocontingencies and working-memory capacity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 64 (3): 517–532. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.509917
- Hamilton, D; Gifford, R (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 12 (4): 392–407. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(76)80006-6
- Hamilton, David L.; Rose, Terrence L. (1980). Illusory correlation and the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39 (5): 832–845. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.832
- Johnston, Kristen E.; Jacobs, Janis E. (2003). Children’s Illusory Correlations: The Role of Attentional Bias in Group Impression Formation. Journal of Cognition and Development. 4 (2): 129–160. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0402_01
- Murphy, Robin A.; Schmeer, Stefanie; Vallée-Tourangeau, Frédéric; Mondragón, Esther; Hilton, Denis (2011). Making the illusory correlation effect appear and then disappear: The effects of increased learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 64 (1): 24–40. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.493615
- Plous, Scott (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050477-6
- Primi, Caterina; Agnoli, Franca (2002). Children correlate infrequent behaviors with minority groups: a case of illusory correlation. Cognitive Development. 17 (1): 1105–1131. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00076-X
- Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Kruschke, John K.; Sherman, Steven J.; Percy, Elise J.; Petrocelli, John V.; Conrey, Frederica R. (2009). Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (2): 305–323. doi:10.1037/a0013778
- Stroessner, Steven J.; Plaks, Jason E. (2001). Illusory Correlation and Stereotype Formation: Tracing the Arc of Research Over a Quarter Century. In Moskowitz, Gordon B. (ed.). Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-3414-7