Covariation Bias Research Articles

Covariation bias in panic-prone individuals.

Covariation estimates between fear-relevant (FR; emergency situations) or fear-irrelevant (FI; mushrooms and nudes) stimuli and an aversive outcome (electrical shock) were examined in 10 high-fear (panic-prone) and 10 low-fear respondents. When the relation between slide category and outcome was random (illusory correlation), only high-fear participants markedly overestimated the contingency between FR slides and shocks. However, when there was a high contingency of shocks following FR stimuli (83%) and a low contingency of shocks following FI stimuli (17%), the group difference vanished. Reversal of contingencies back to random induced a covariation bias for FR slides in high- and low-fear respondents. Results indicate that panic-prone respondents show a covariation bias for FR stimuli and that the experience of a high contingency between FR slides and aversive outcomes may foster such a covariation bias even in low-fear respondents.

The expectancy bias model of selective associations: The relationship of judgments of CS dangerousness, CS-UCS similarity and prior fear to a priori and a posteriori covariation assessments

This paper describes three experiments examining predictions from the expectancy bias model of selective associations (Davey, 1995). In a simulated ‘threat’ conditioning procedure, Experiment 1 showed that UCS expectancy following both ontogenetic and phylogenetic CSs was significantly predicted by: (1) ratings of the dangerousness of the CS, perceptions of CS-UCS similarity, and level of prior fear to the CS; and (2) ratings of CS-UCS similarity on the dimensions of valence, arousal and anxiety. Experiment 2 used a covariation assessment procedure which confirmed the findings of Experiment 1, and also showed that both phylogenetic and ontogenetic fear-relevant CSs exhibited both a priori and a posteriori covariation biases. Experiment 3 found that Ss high and low in fear to a fear-relevant CS exhibited a significant a priori UCS expectancy bias, but this bias was significantly larger in high fear Ss. Only high fear Ss exhibited an a posteriori covariation bias. These results are consistent with predictions from the expectancy bias model.

Covariation Bias and Paranormal Belief

22 believers and 20 skeptics of extrasensory perception (ESP) participated in a telepathy experiment. Subjects were asked to judge the covariation between transmitted symbols and the corresponding feedback given by a receiver. Believers overestimated the number of successful transmissions ('hits'). Skeptics were characterized by accurate hit judgments. For believers, positive correlations between hit-responses, their heart rates, and their experienced arousal were found. In addition, subjective arousal was positively associated with the hit estimates given at the end of the experiment. This response pattern was absent in the group of skeptics. It is concluded that covariation bias as a psychophysiological concept plays an important role in the maintenance of paranormal belief.

Covariation bias in panic-prone individuals.

Covariation estimates between fear-relevant (FR; emergency situations) or fear-irrelevant (FI; mushrooms and nudes) stimuli and an aversive outcome (electrical shock) were examined in 10 high-fear (panic-prone) and 10 low-fear respondents. When the relation between slide category and outcome was random (illusory correlation), only high-fear participants markedly overestimated the contingency between FR slides and shocks. However, when there was a high contingency of shocks following FR stimuli (83%) and a low contingency of shocks following FI stimuli (17%), the group difference vanished. Reversal of contingencies back to random induced a covariation bias for FR slides in high- and low-fear respondents. Results indicate that panic-prone respondents show a covariation bias for FR stimuli and that the experience of a high contingency between FR slides and aversive outcomes may foster such a covariation bias even in low-fear respondents.

Hemisphere preference, anxiety, and covariation bias

In Study I, normal subjects ( N = 70) completed the Preference Test (PT), the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the Anxiety Sensitivity Index. Subjects with a preference for a right hemisphere thinking style (as indexed by PT) were found to have higher state anxiety and anxiety sensitivity scores than subjects with a left hemisphere thinking style. This finding is in line with the suggestion that the right hemisphere is involved in the development and maintenance of anxiety. Study II explored whether the relationship between right hemisphere preference and anxiety may result from the different cognitive characteristics that are attributed to the two hemispheres. It might well be that cognitive biases that are thought to maintain or exaggerate anxiety states (e.g. covariation bias), emerge from a right hemisphere mode of information processing. Therefore, it was investigated whether covariation bias is linked to right hemisphere preference. Subjects were exposed to a series of slides comprising pictures of spiders, weapons, and flowers. Slides were randomly paired with either a shock, a tone or nothing. Aposteriori, subjects indicated the contingencies of each stimulus/outcome combination. Data confirmed that anxiety was related to covariation bias. However, the hypothesis that cognitive biases are linked to a right hemisphere style of thinking was only partially sustained.

Covariation bias and the return of fear

Several studies have indicated that phobic fear is accompanied by a covariation bias, i.e. that phobic Ss tend to overassociate fear relevant stimuli and aversive outcomes. Such a covariation bias seems to be a fairly direct and powerful way to confirm danger expectations and enhance fear. Therefore, it has been suggested that covariation bias is an important factor in the maintenance of phobic fear. However, thus far there are no empirical data available to exclude the alternative possibility that covariation bias is a mere epiphenomenon of fear. To explore the “causal” status of covariation bias, successfully treated spider phobics who participated in an earlier study on covariation bias were asked to complete a Spider Phobia Questionnaire at 2 yr follow up. Results indicate that Ss who displayed a covariation bias immediately after treatment are more vulnerable to relapse than Ss who did not show such a bias. This finding strengthens the idea that covariation bias may enhance fear, thereby contradicting the suggestion that covariation bias is a mere epiphenomenon of phobic fear.

Covariation bias in phobic women: The relationship between a priori expectancy, on-line expectancy, autonomic responding, and a posteriori contingency judgment.

Thirty-eight people with spider phobias (19 untreated and 19 treated) were exposed to a series of 72 slides of pictures of spiders, weapons, and flowers that were randomly paired with either a shock, a siren, or nothing. A posteriori, untreated participants reported an illusory correlation (IC) between spiders and shock. Although the IC was not significantly smaller in treated as compared to untreated participants, no significant IC could be shown in treated participants. For untreated people enhanced shock expectancies were already present on the first spider trials. The IC was paralleled by heightened skin conductance responses (UCRs) on shocks that were preceded by spider slides compared to shocks preceded by other slides. There were positive correlations between IC, on-line expectancies, and UCRs.

Covariation bias, classical conditioning, and phobic fear.

The present study investigated whether phobics show an illusory correlation (IC) between phobia-relevant stimuli and aversive events. Nineteen treated and 19 untreated spider phobics were exposed to a series of 72 slides. Three different categories were used: Phobia-relevant slides (spiders), alternative fear-relevant slides (weapons), and neutral slides (flowers). Slides were randomly paired with either a shock, a siren, or nothing at all. All slide/outcome combinations occurred equally frequently. A posteriori recorded contingency estimates indicated that untreated phobics dramatically overestimate the covariation of spiders and shock. On-line recorded outcome expectancies revealed that the bias to overestimate the spider-shock contingency is highly resistant to extinction. The covariation bias was accompanied by differentially heightened electrodermal first interval responses (FIR) and unconditioned electrodermal responses (third interval responses: TIR) on phobia-relevant trials. Treated phobics did not show a covariation bias, indicating that such bias can be modulated by behavioral treatment. The present findings sustain the hypothesis that phobic subjects process information in a fear-confirming way.

Covariation bias in phobia: Mere resistance to preexperimental expectancies?

In the present study subjects were asked to read a description of the experimental procedure that was used in a previous study on covariation bias and to imagine that they were about to participate in that experiment. They were then asked to predict the probabilities of all slide/outcome combinations. In addition, they rated the confidence of their predictions. There were 2 concurrent fear-relevant stimuli (weapon and spider) and 1 neutral stimulus (flower) included in the “experiment.” Stimuli could be followed by either a shock, a siren, or nothing. Both high-fear (n=30) and low-fear (n=34) subjects typically expected spiders to be paired with shock. In addition, they were equally confident about their predictions. The present results indicate that preexperimental expectancies are not sufficient to explain the differences in a posteriori reported covariation estimates between high- and low-fear subjects that were found in previous studies.

Covariation detection in treated and untreated spider phobics.

Twenty treated and 18 untreated spider phobics were exposed to a series of 72 slides. Three different categories of slides were used: phobia-relevant slides (spiders), alternative fear-relevant slides (weapons), and neutral slides (flowers). Slides were randomly paired with either a shock, a tone, or nothing at all. Despite the absence of a systematic correlation between slides and outcomes, untreated phobics strongly overestimated the covariation between spider slides and shock. Treated phobics did not show a covariation bias, suggesting that such bias can be modulated by behavioral treatment. In addition, untreated subjects were more confident about their contingency estimates than were treated subjects. The present results fit with earlier studies.

An Attributional Analysis of Maternal Beliefs about the Importance of Child-rearing Practices

2 principles from attribution theory, covariation and hedonic bias, were employed to examine mothers' attributions for their children's outcomes in the academic, social, and personality domains. Mother of 5–17-year-old gifted, regular, and special education children who were from only-child or multiple-child families made attributions for offspring outcomes to childrearing practices, genetics, and the environment. Based on the covariation principle, it was predicted that mothers of only children would attribute greater importance to child-rearing practices as causes of their children's outcomes than would mothers of multiple children. In addition, predictions based on the hedonic bias led us to hypothesize greater endorsement of child-rearing attributions for gifted (perceived high success) than special education (perceived low success) children. Both hypotheses were supported across all 3 domains. The dilemma of perceived parental responsibility and the usefulness of an attributional approach for understanding parents' causal beliefs are discussed.

Covariation bias and electrodermal responding in spider phobics before and after behavioural treatment

The present study investigated whether a covariation bias is present in severe spider phobics and whether such bias is modified by successful treatment. In addition, this study sought to examine whether a covariation bias is linked to differential autonomic responding. Subjects were 20 untreated phobics, 19 treated phobics, and 18 no-fear controls. Subjects were exposed to a series of 72 slides comprising three categories: spiders (fear-relevant), mushrooms, and flowers. At slide offset one of three possible outcomes occurred: a shock, a tone, or nothing at all. All slide-outcome combinations occurred equally frequent. The results show that an equally strong covariation bias is present in severe spider phobics, in successfully treated phobics, and in no-fear controls. Thus, the present data only partially sustain earlier findings of Tomarken A.J., Mineka S. & Cook M. (1989) (Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 381–394). The covariation bias appeared to be mimicked by differentially heightened autonomic responding. The current data suggest that both the covariation bias and the heightened physiological responding reflect a “beloningness” between spider slides and aversive outcome.

Illusory correlation, on-line probability estimates, and electrodermal responding in a (quasi)-conditioning paradigm

Twenty normal subjects were exposed to two series of two different slides randomly paired with the occurrence or non-occurrence of shock. The first series started with a greater number of pairings of one slide with shock (“target slide”) than the other to induce an illusory correlation (IC). Meanwhile, across all trials shock/slide contingency was equal for both slides. During the second series, a truly random sequence of slide-shock trials was used in order to examine whether IC was resistant to disconfirmational information. Subjects' contingency estimates were recorded a posteriori as well as on-line. In addition, electrodermal responding was recorded on a trial-by-trial basis. Data show that it is possible to induce an IC between a neutral stimulus and an aversive outcome by means of a conditioning-like procedure. Moreover, data strongly suggest that an IC can act in such a way as to maintain or enhance covariation bias as indexed by on-line probability estimates. Finally, data sustain the hypothesis that a covariation bias is associated with differential autonomic responding.

Fear-relevant selective associations and covariation bias.

Fear-relevant selective associations and covariation bias.

Fear-relevant selective associations and covariation bias.

Three experiments used an illusory correlation paradigm to assess the effects of fear on the perception of the covariation between fear-relevant stimuli and shock. In Experiment 1, high- and low-fear women were exposed to 72 trials during each of which a fear-relevant (snake or spider) or fear-irrelevant (mushroom and flower) slide was followed by a shock, a tone, or nothing. Although the relation between slide types and outcomes was random, high-fear subjects markedly overestimated the contingency between feared slides and shock. Experiment 2 showed that this bias was due to the aversive, rather than more generally salient, features of shock. Low-fear subjects demonstrated biases equivalent to those of high-fear subjects only when the base rate of shock was increased from 33% to 50% in Experiment 3. It is concluded that fear may be linked to biases that serve to confirm fear. The relevance of the present findings to preparedness theory is also discussed.