you are more of a victim of cognitive biases if you believe in them!

Health is a subject that concerns us all. This is an area where most people rely on their personal experience or that of their friends to know whether a treatment is effective or not. However, modern medical sciences have developed, for more than half a century, a robust methodology which makes it possible to avoid the numerous biases represented by personal experience. Nevertheless, we continue to happily place our trust in practices that have not proven their effectiveness. This is the case of so-called alternative or complementary medicines (CAM), the use of which can cause delays in care and undesirable effects for patients. It is therefore essential to investigate what determines this type of belief. Spanish psychology researchers suggest that belief in MACs is associated with a greater tendency to be the victim of a cognitive bias called the causal illusion.

Some reminders about cognitive biases

A cognitive bias is a way of processing information, from its perception to its encoding through its processing, in a direction that can lead to errors. Cognitive biases find their first description in dual theories of reasoning and are only operative in a framework that compares them to a way of processing information less prone to distortion. To cite just one example, cognitive biases make no sense in the theory of ecological rationality. In this study, the authors will focus their attention on causal illusion and motivated reasoning. The first corresponds to the systematic error which consists of perceiving a causal link between two events which are not linked just because they occur nearby in time. The second refers to the tendency to evaluate situations or arguments based on our pre-existing beliefs.

Several studies suggest that belief in pseudoscience is correlated with susceptibility to falling victim to causal illusions. For the authors of our study, these previous results can be interpreted in two ways: either people who believe in pseudoscience are more likely to be victims of causal illusions in general, or they are more likely to be victims of ‘causal illusions on topics related to pseudoscience because they judge the situation using their prior beliefs. The experiment carried out serves to decide between these two possible interpretations, even if in absolute terms, the choice of interpretation is not entirely determined by the experiment.

Causal delusion is more common among people who believe in alternative medicine

To do this, the researchers measured several things in the participants evaluated: support for pseudoscience using a standardized questionnaire and support for alternative medicine using a blank text task. . Then, they offered the subjects of the experiment different scenarios in which the story was told of a person who had (or had not) taken a conventional (or alternative) treatment and had (or had not) cured of his symptoms. Each scenario was constructed in such a way that it could be understood that the medication had nothing to do with the person’s potential recovery. Participants were then asked to what extent they thought the treatment (or lack thereof) was causally related to recovery (or persistence of symptoms).

The results show a broad tendency for people who adhere to beliefs about alternative medicine to experience causal delusion in both conventional and alternative scenarios. This suggests that the preferred interpretation would be that of a general causal illusion more widespread among people who believe in alternative medicine. However, the authors are aware of notable limitations in their experiment:

• people who believe in alternative medicine usually also believe in conventional medicine. The fact that they are victims of causal illusion in conventional scenarios therefore does not necessarily mean that they are predisposed to causal illusion in general. They may as well analyze this scenario with the prior belief that conventional medicine is effective;
• we do not know in which direction the correlation goes. Is it the fact of believing in MACs that predisposes to the causal illusion or the opposite? Is it a third factor which is in reality correlated with these two variables, such as the presence of fundamental beliefs, which could cover all of the cognitive biases? ;
• perhaps a third variable, such as intuitive or analytical reasoning style, explains the observed correlation.

The importance of a less “cognitive-centered” vision

It is difficult to know how to apply these results in the real world. Should we seek to reduce this causal illusion? Should we tackle alternative and complementary medicine? Should we focus on the fundamental beliefs that underlie most cognitive biases? It’s probably important to have a broader view. As we know, rationality and doubt are not “miracle” cures when it comes to making decisions when we are bad, lost and desperate for a solution. Many solutions need to be investigated in terms of media education, showing how to trust in parallel with how to be wary and the sociology of health, to modify certain institutionalized practices which can harm access or perception. of the conventional health system.