Why Do You Always Have the Perception That the Queue You're In Is Moving Slower Than the Others?

Illusory correlation is a fascinating psychological phenomenon where people perceive a relationship between two variables even when no such relationship exists. This cognitive bias can significantly influence our decisions and perceptions in daily life. This post explores the concept of illusory correlation, supported by research evidence, and uses common examples such as two queues and waiting for a bus to illustrate its impact.

The Concept of Illusory Correlation

The term "illusory correlation" was first coined by psychologists David Hamilton and Robert Gifford in 1976. Their research demonstrated that people often mistakenly associate certain characteristics with a particular group, even when no actual correlation exists. This phenomenon is a byproduct of the brain's natural tendency to seek patterns and make sense of the world.

Research Evidence: Hamilton and Gifford's seminal study involved participants being shown descriptions of positive and negative behaviours performed by members of two groups, Group A and Group B. Despite the ratio of positive to negative behaviours being identical for both groups, participants perceived Group B, the minority group, more negatively. This study highlighted how the illusory correlation can lead to biased judgments, especially in stereotyping and prejudice.

Further research by Fiedler (2004) expanded on this concept, demonstrating that illusory correlations are not limited to social groups but can occur in various contexts. Fiedler's work suggested that these biases arise from the cognitive processes involved in encoding and retrieving information, where rare or distinctive events are more memorable and thus seem more frequent.

Everyday Examples: To illustrate the concept of illusory correlation, let's delve into two common scenarios: choosing between two queues and waiting for a bus.

The Case of the Two Queues: 

Imagine you are at the supermarket, and you have the choice between two queues. You pick one, but it seems to move slower than the other. You might start to believe that you always choose the slowest queue. This belief is an illusory correlation. In reality, queues move at random paces, and your perception is biased by the times you remember waiting longer.

A study by Vohs and Baumeister (2016) supports this idea, showing that people tend to remember negative experiences more vividly than positive ones. This cognitive bias, known as the "negativity bias," can lead to an exaggerated perception of how often one encounters negative events, such as being in a slow queue.

Waiting for a Bus: 

Another typical example occurs at the bus stop. You might think that buses always arrive just as you walk away or after you've waited for an unusually long time. This perception leads to the belief that you are unlucky with bus timings. Again, this is an illusory correlation. Buses run on schedules, and the waiting time varies due to numerous factors, not just your presence.

Research by Latané and Darley (1970) on the "bystander effect" indirectly touches on this phenomenon. Their work suggests that people are prone to overestimating the frequency of rare events because these events are more memorable. Applying this to the bus stop scenario, you remember the times when the bus arrived just as you walked away more vividly, thus reinforcing the belief in an illusory correlation.

The Mechanisms Behind Illusory Correlation: 

To understand why illusory correlations occur, it's essential to explore the underlying cognitive mechanisms. One primary mechanism is the availability heuristic, a mental shortcut where people rely on immediate examples that come to mind when evaluating a specific topic or decision. Because rare or distinctive events are more memorable, they are more readily available in our minds, leading to biased judgments.

Another mechanism is confirmation bias, where individuals seek out or interpret information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. If you already believe that you always choose the slowest queue, you are more likely to notice and remember instances that confirm this belief, while ignoring instances that contradict it.

Breaking Down the Bias: 

Understanding illusory correlation helps in recognising and mitigating biases in our thinking. By acknowledging that our brains are wired to find patterns, even where none exist, we can make more rational and evidence-based decisions.

One approach to counteracting illusory correlation is to seek out objective data. For instance, if you suspect that you always choose the slowest queue, track your queue times over a month. You might find that the times average out, revealing no significant difference between your choices.

Another strategy is to increase awareness of cognitive biases. Training programs that focus on cognitive biases and decision-making can help individuals recognize and counteract these tendencies. Research by Morewedge et al. (2015) shows that cognitive bias training can significantly reduce the impact of biases like illusory correlation.

Real-World Implications: 

Illusory correlations are not just confined to everyday inconveniences like queues and bus timings. They have broader implications in various fields, including healthcare, criminal justice, and marketing.

In healthcare, illusory correlations can lead to diagnostic errors. For example, a doctor might overestimate the likelihood of a rare disease because they vividly remember a recent case. In criminal justice, stereotypes and prejudices influenced by illusory correlations can affect jury decisions and law enforcement practices.

In marketing, companies might exploit illusory correlations to influence consumer behaviour. For instance, associating a product with positive traits, even if unfounded, can sway consumer preferences.

Just a conclusion: 

Illusory correlation is a pervasive cognitive bias that affects our perceptions and decisions in subtle yet significant ways. By understanding the mechanisms behind this phenomenon and recognising its presence in everyday life, we can take steps to mitigate its impact. Whether it's choosing the "wrong" queue at the supermarket or feeling unlucky at the bus stop, awareness of illusory correlation can lead to more rational and informed decision-making.

Research continues to shed light on this fascinating aspect of human cognition, reminding us that our brains, while powerful, are not infallible. By embracing a more evidence-based approach to our beliefs and decisions, we can navigate the complexities of daily life with greater clarity and accuracy.

The Excessive TV-Watching will cause Dementia, Depression and Parkinson’s Disease

In a digital age where screens often dominate our daily lives, a recent study published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity offers a thought-provoking insight into the health implications of our viewing habits. This comprehensive analysis, led by Dr. Hanzhang Wu of Tianjin University of Traditional Medicine, China, reveals a concerning correlation between excessive television-watching and an increased risk of dementia, Parkinson's Disease (PD), and depression.

The Study: A Deep Dive into Digital Habits and Health

The research tapped into the UK Biobank, analyzing data from 473,184 individuals aged 39-72 years, followed from 2006 to either a diagnosis of dementia, PD, depression, death, or the study's end. Participants reported their non-work related activities, including exercise, TV-watching, and computer use, alongside undergoing MRI scans to measure brain volume.

The Findings: TV Time and Its Toll

The study's results paint a stark picture: those who indulged in over four hours of TV daily faced a 28% higher risk of dementia, a 35% higher risk of depression, and a 16% greater risk of PD compared to those who watched less than an hour. These figures stand as a cautionary tale against the sedentary lifestyle often associated with excessive TV consumption.

A Silver Lining: Moderate Computer Use

Contrastingly, the study found that moderate computer use (30-60 minutes per day) appeared somewhat protective, lowering the risks for dementia, PD, and depression. This finding challenges the blanket notion that all screen time is detrimental, suggesting that the content and context of digital consumption are key factors.

Exercise: A Vital Substitute

Perhaps most strikingly, replacing just 30 minutes of computer time with structured exercise significantly reduced the risks for dementia and PD. This highlights the immense value of physical activity as a cornerstone of neurological health.

Understanding the Underlying Mechanism

The researchers speculate that the negative impact of prolonged TV-watching might stem from its sedentary nature, which is linked to low-grade inflammation. This inflammation could contribute to neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration, accelerating the onset of diseases like dementia and PD.

Limitations and Considerations

While the study offers valuable insights, it's crucial to note its reliance on self-reported data, which can be subject to recall bias. Additionally, there may be other confounding variables not accounted for in the research.

The Takeaway: Rethinking Our Screen Habits

This study serves as a wake-up call to reassess our daily routines. It suggests that while moderate, purposeful screen use (like computer work) can be part of a healthy lifestyle, excessive, passive screen time (like prolonged TV-watching) might have dire health implications.

 In Practice: Balancing Screen Time with Active Living

For individuals and healthcare professionals alike, the message is clear: balance is key. Integrating regular physical activity into our routines and being mindful of our screen habits could be crucial steps in safeguarding our neurological health.

As we navigate a world increasingly oriented around digital screens, this study underscores the importance of staying active and engaged in a variety of activities. It's not just about cutting screen time; it's about enhancing our overall lifestyle to nurture our physical and mental well-being.

Magic Mushrooms could replace Anti-depressants!

I started reading this article in the Indepedent with a curious mind! Interest in the potential medical uses for psychedelics, such as “magic mushrooms” and LSD, has rapidly increased in recent years, leading to the opening of the world’s first formal center for psychedelics research in April — and the center’s leader is already prepared to make a bold prediction about the future of psychedelics in medicine. The ideas are bloomed since the cannabis oil became a prescribed medicine recently.

Emotional Release

Carhart-Harris is currently leading a Centre for Psychedelic Research trial to compare the ability of psilocybin, or “magic,” mushrooms and leading antidepressants to treat depression.

He told The Independent that so far, participants are reporting that the psilocybin leaves them feeling like they’ve experienced an emotional “release,” while patients often criticize antidepressants for making them feel like their emotions are “blunted.”

Wishful Thinking

Given the ‘positive’ feedback from study participants and psilocybin mushrooms’ extremely low risk for overdose or addiction, it’s not hard to see why Carhart-Harris is optimistic that doctors will soon be able to use psychedelics to treat patients. Although, we know that the ‘magic’ mushrooms are abundantly available in the streets and self medicating is not uncommon in UK. 

Another psychedelics researcher, James Rucker from King’s College London, isn’t so sure about Carhart-Harris’ timeline (which I’m not comfortable either), telling The Independent that five years is “possible… but only if everything goes to plan, and you know what they say about best-laid plans.”
So next time when you travel through M1,  look out for majestic magic mushroom fields! 

READ MORE: Magic mushrooms could replace antidepressants within five years, says new psychedelic research centre [The Independent]

Intrusive thoughts and Mind Control

Intrusive Thoughts Might Be Caused By a Shortage of a Certain Chemical

Scientists have linked a neurotransmitter known as GABA to unwanted and intrusive thoughts. These findings could have a major impact on our understanding of conditions like obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia

DON’T THINK ABOUT IT
Most of us know the feeling of being unable to distract ourselves from a particular thought, however much we might want to. Now, scientists might have found the reason why.

In a study carried out at the University of Cambridge, participants were given pairs of words to associate with one another. The words were unrelated in order to ensure that pre-existing associations didn’t have any influence. Participants were then given a word and either a green or a red signal. If it was the former, they would try to recall the other half of the pairing, and if it was the latter, they would try to deliberately suppress the associated term from their mind.

While this test was being carried out, participants’ brains were monitored using functional magnetic resonance imaging, a technique that monitors changes in blood flow, as well as magnetic resonance spectroscopy, which tracks chemical changes.

Participants with the highest concentrations of a chemical known as Gaba in their hippocampus were best at suppressing the unwanted thoughts. Gaba is the brain’s primary inhibiting neurotransmitter, stifling the activities of other cells when it’s released.

“What’s exciting about this is that now we’re getting very specific,” said Professor Michael Anderson, who led the study, in an interview with the BBC. “Before, we could only say ‘this part of the brain acts on that part’, but now we can say which neurotransmitters are likely to be important.”

MIND CONTROL
A difficulty with or an inability to break free from intrusive and unwanted thoughts are a reality both for neurotypical people and also for those with various types of mental illness. Conditions ranging from obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder to depression and schizophrenia all count this type of behaviour among their symptoms.

As such, there are hopes that these findings could offer further insight into the chemical basis of these disorders. At present, much of the research into treatment methods has centered around helping the prefrontal cortex to function normally. However, Anderson believes that figuring out a way to promote Gaba activity in the hippocampus could actually offer more positive results.