Fernando Blanco | Universidad de Deusto (original) (raw)

Papers by Fernando Blanco

Overestimations of null contingencies between a cue, C, and an outcome, O, are widely reported ef... more Overestimations of null contingencies between a cue, C, and an outcome, O, are widely reported effects that can arise for multiple reasons. For instance, a high probability of the cue, P(C), and a high probability of the outcome, P(O), are conditions that promote such overestimations. In two experiments, participants were asked to judge the contingency between a cue and an outcome. Both P(C) and P(O) were given extreme values (high and low) in a factorial design, while maintaining the contingency between the two events at zero. While we were able to observe main effects of the probability of each event, our experiments showed that the cue- and outcome-density biases interacted such that a high probability of the two stimuli enhanced the overestimation beyond the effects observed when only one of the two events was frequent. This evidence can be used to better understand certain societal issues, such as belief in pseudoscience, that can be the result of overestimations of null contingencies in high-P(C) or high-P(O) situations.

Some alternative medicines enjoy widespread use, and in certain situations are preferred over con... more Some alternative medicines enjoy widespread use, and in certain situations are preferred over conventional, validated treatments in spite of the fact that they fail to prove effective when tested scientifically. We propose that the causal illusion, a basic cognitive bias, underlies the belief in the effectiveness of bogus treatments. Therefore, the variables that modulate the former might affect the latter. For example, it is well known that the illusion is boosted when a potential cause occurs with high probability. In this study, we examined the effect of this variable in a fictitious medical scenario. First, we showed that people used a fictitious medicine (i.e., a potential cause of remission) more often when they thought it caused no side effects. Second, the more often they used the medicine, the more likely they were to develop an illusory belief in its effectiveness, despite the fact that it was actually useless. This behavior may be parallel to actual pseudomedicine usage; that because a treatment is thought to be harmless, it is used with high frequency, hence the overestimation of its effectiveness in treating diseases with a high rate of spontaneous relief. This study helps shed light on the motivations spurring the widespread preference of pseudomedicines over scientific medicines. This is a valuable first step toward the development of scientifically validated strategies to counteract the impact of pseudomedicine on society.

Researchers have warned that causal illusions are at the root of many superstitious beliefs and f... more Researchers have warned that causal illusions are at the root of many superstitious beliefs and fuel many people's faith in pseudoscience, thus generating significant suffering in modern society. Therefore, it is critical that we understand the mechanisms by which these illusions develop and persist. A vast amount of research in psychology has investigated these mechanisms, but little work has been done on the extent to which it is possible to debias individuals against causal illusions. We present an intervention in which a sample of adolescents was introduced to the concept of experimental control, focusing on the need to consider the base rate of the outcome variable in order to determine if a causal relationship exists. The effectiveness of the intervention was measured using a standard contingency learning task that involved fake medicines that typically produce causal illusions. Half of the participants performed the contingency learning task before participating in the educational intervention (the control group), and the other half performed the task after they had completed the intervention (the experimental group). The participants in the experimental group made more realistic causal judgments than did those in the control group, which served as a baseline. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first evidence-based educational intervention that could be easily implemented to reduce causal illusions and the many problems associated with them, such as superstitions and belief in pseudoscience.

Misperceptions of causality are at the heart of superstitious thinking and pseudoscience. The mai... more Misperceptions of causality are at the heart of superstitious thinking and pseudoscience. The main goal of the present work is to show how our knowledge about the mechanisms involved in causal induction can be used to hinder the development of these beliefs. Available evidence shows that people sometimes perceive causal relationships that do not really exist. We suggest that this might be partly due to their failing to take into account alternative factors that might be playing an important causal role. The present experiment shows that providing accurate and difficult-to-ignore information about other candidate causes can be a good strategy for reducing misattributions of causality, such as illusions of control.

We investigated whether offset-control of the unconditioned stimulus (US) reduces context conditi... more We investigated whether offset-control of the unconditioned stimulus (US) reduces context conditioning induced by US-unpredictability within a human conditioned suppression preparation. We also examined lack of control vs. loss of control. Three groups (No Controllability, NC; Controllability, C; Loss of Controllability, LC) received unsignaled USs during two learning phases (ACQ1-2). The NC group, never had offset-control, whereas the C group, always had offset-control. The LC group, had offset-control during ACQ1, but not during ACQ2. Results indicated that US-unpredictability led to contextual conditioned suppression during ACQ1, only when participants did not have offset-control; when they did, no context conditioning was established. From ACQ1 to ACQ2, contextual conditioned suppression increased in the LC, group, but it was not more pronounced than in the NC group. These data suggest that offset-control attenuates context conditioning induced by US-unpredictability and – at least in this paradigm – loss of control is not worse than lack of control

Several classic studies have concluded that the accuracy of identifying uncontrollable situations... more Several classic studies have concluded that the accuracy of identifying uncontrollable situations depends heavily on depressive mood. Nondepressed participants tend to exhibit an optimistic illusion of control, whereas depressed participants tend to better detect a lack of control. Recently, we suggested that the different activity levels (measured as the probability of responding during a contingency learning task) exhibited by depressed and nondepressed individuals is partly responsible for this effect. The two studies presented in this paper provide further support for this mediational hypothesis, in which mood is the distal cause of the illusion of control operating through activity level, the proximal cause. In Study 1, the probability of responding, P(R), was found to be a mediator variable between the depressive symptoms and the judgments of control. In Study 2, we intervened directly on the mediator variable: The P(R) for both depressed and nondepressed participants was manipulated through instructions. Our results confirm that P(R) manipulation produced differences in the participants' perceptions of uncontrollability. Importantly, the intervention on the mediator variable cancelled the effect of the distal cause; the participants' judgments of control were no longer mood dependent when the P(R) was manipulated. This result supports the hypothesis that the so-called depressive realism effect is actually mediated by the probability of responding.

It is well known that certain variables can bias judgements about the perceived contingency betwe... more It is well known that certain variables can bias judgements about the perceived contingency between an action and an outcome, making them depart from the normative predictions. For instance, previous studies have proven that the activity level or probability of responding, P(R), is a crucial variable that can affect these judgements in objectively noncontingent situations. A possible account for the P(R) effect is based on the differential exposure to actual contingencies during the training phase, which is in turn presumably produced by individual differences in participants' P(R). The current two experiments replicate the P(R) effect in a free-response paradigm, and show that participants' judgements are better predicted by P(R) than by the actual contingency to which they expose themselves. Besides, both experiments converge with previous empirical data, showing a persistent bias that does not vanish as training proceeds. These findings contrast with the preasymptotic and transitory effect predicted by several theoretical models.

Many theories of contingency learning assume (either explicitly or implicitly) that predicting wh... more Many theories of contingency learning assume (either explicitly or implicitly) that predicting whether an outcome will occur should be easier than making a causal judgment. Previous research suggests that outcome predictions would depart from normative standards less often than causal judgments, which is consistent with the idea that the latter are based on more numerous and complex processes. However, only indirect evidence exists for this view. The experiment presented here specifically addresses this issue by allowing for a fair comparison of causal judgments and outcome predictions, both collected at the same stage with identical rating scales. Cue density, a parameter known to affect judgments, is manipulated in a contingency learning paradigm. The results show that, if anything, the cue-density bias is stronger in outcome predictions than in causal judgments. These results contradict key assumptions of many influential theories of contingency learning

Although normatively irrelevant to the relationship between a cue and an outcome, outcome density... more Although normatively irrelevant to the relationship between a cue and an outcome, outcome density (i.e. its base-rate probability) affects people's estimation of causality. By what process causality is incorrectly estimated is of importance to an integrative theory of causal learning. A potential explanation may be that this happens because outcome density induces a judgement bias. An alternative explanation is explored here, following which the incorrect estimation of causality is grounded in the processing of cue–outcome information during learning. A first neural network simulation shows that, in the absence of a deep processing of cue information, cue–outcome relationships are acquired but causality is correctly estimated. The second simulation shows how an incorrect estimation of causality may emerge from the active processing of both cue and outcome information. In an experiment inspired by the simulations, the role of a deep processing of cue information was put to test. In addition to an outcome density manipulation, a shallow cue manipulation was introduced: cue information was either still displayed (concurrent) or no longer displayed (delayed) when outcome information was given. Behavioural and simulation results agree: the outcome-density effect was maximal in the concurrent condition. The results are discussed with respect to the extant explanations of the outcome-density effect within the causal learning framework.

It is generally assumed that the function of contingency learning is to predict the occurrence of... more It is generally assumed that the function of contingency learning is to predict the occurrence of important events in order to prepare for them. This assumption, however, has scarcely been tested. Moreover, the little evidence that is available suggests just the opposite result. People do not use contingency to prepare for outcomes, nor to predict their occurrence, although they do use it to infer the causal and predictive value of cues. By using both judgmental and behavioral data, we designed the present experiments as a further test for this assumption. The results show that-at least under certain conditions-people do use contingency to prepare for outcomes, even though they would still not use it to predict their occurrence. The functional and adaptive aspects of these results are discussed in the present article

Depressive realism consists of the lower personal control over uncontrollable events perceived by... more Depressive realism consists of the lower personal control over uncontrollable events perceived by depressed as compared to nondepressed individuals. In this article, we propose that the realism of depressed individuals is caused not by an increased accuracy in perception, but by their more comprehensive exposure to the actual environmental contingencies, which in turn is due to their more pas-sive pattern of responding. To test this hypothesis, dysphoric and nondysphoric participants were exposed to an uncontrollable task and both their probability of responding and their judgment of control were assessed. As was expected, higher levels of depression correlated negatively with probability of responding and with the illusion of control. Implications for a therapy of depression are discussed.

When people try to obtain a desired event and this outcome occurs independently of their behavior... more When people try to obtain a desired event and this outcome occurs independently of their behavior, they often think that they are controlling its occurrence. This is known as the illusion of control, and it is the basis for most superstitions and pseudosciences. However, most experiments demonstrating this effect had been conducted many years ago and almost always in the controlled environment of the psychology laboratory and with psychology students as subjects. Here, we explore the generality of this effect and show that it is still today a robust phenomenon that can be observed even in the context of a very simple computer program that users try to control (and believe that they are controlling) over the Internet. Understanding how robust and general this effect is, is a first step towards eradicating irrational and pseudoscientific thinking.