Causal illusions in the classroom: how the distribution of student outcomes can promote false instructional beliefs

• Published in: Cognitive research: principles and implications Vol. 5; no. 1; p. 34
• Main Authors: Double, Kit S., Chow, Julie Y. L., Livesey, Evan J., Hopfenbeck, Therese N.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 03.08.2020; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; Causal illusions; Cognitive Psychology; Contingency learning; Experimental Psychology; False beliefs; Neurosciences; Original; Original Article; Outcome density effect; Psychology; Teacher beliefs; The Psychology of Fake News; Outcome density effect; Causal illusions; False beliefs; Contingency learning; Teacher beliefs
• ISSN: 2365-7464; 2365-7464
• DOI: 10.1186/s41235-020-00237-2

Teachers sometimes believe in the efficacy of instructional practices that have little empirical support. These beliefs have proven difficult to efface despite strong challenges to their evidentiary basis. Teachers typically develop causal beliefs about the efficacy of instructional practices by inferring their effect on students’ academic performance. Here, we evaluate whether causal inferences about instructional practices are susceptible to an outcome density effect using a contingency learning task . In a series of six experiments, participants were ostensibly presented with students’ assessment outcomes, some of whom had supposedly received teaching via a novel technique and some of whom supposedly received ordinary instruction. The distributions of the assessment outcomes was manipulated to either have frequent positive outcomes (high outcome density condition) or infrequent positive outcomes (low outcome density condition). For both continuous and categorical assessment outcomes, participants in the high outcome density condition rated the novel instructional technique as effective, despite the fact that it either had no effect or had a negative effect on outcomes, while the participants in the low outcome density condition did not. These results suggest that when base rates of performance are high, participants may be particularly susceptible to drawing inaccurate inferences about the efficacy of instructional practices.