Psychology question: How is temporal contiguity related to the mistakes we often make?

I have never heard the term but I imagine the mistakes could be made if you felt that one of the stimuli was the cause of the other. Let’s say a child reaches out and touches a hot stove at the same time that cold water was accidentally poured on their head. They might make an association between heat and getting wet and never want to go in water for fear of burning. Or a child who was naughty right before a parent was injured would mistakenly believe that their actions caused the injury. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does make sense. Thanks for answering.

I know that most often in that class we talk about the contiguity happening when the two stimuli occur together multiple times, but I’m not sure if that always has to be the case.

Does your professor give any examples of the kinds of mistakes s/he’s thinking about?

I’m thinking it could also be where a behavior has two different consequences that could occur, but we focus on the incorrect one?

Like, someone driving through a red light might get to work early, but they could also have gotten a speeding ticket?

@nikipedia No. The “study guide” just says: “What is temporal contiguity? How is this related to the mistakes we often make?”

But that’s not really two stimuli occurring at the same time.

My instinct is that your professor is going for something similar to magical thinking. People see two events that happen closely together in time, and think that one caused the other. For instance, you smell a certain perfume (event 1) and you sneeze immediately after (event 2). You might mistakenly conclude that the perfume caused you to sneeze, but in reality you were going to sneeze anyway.

Does that make sense?

@janbb When I was asking this question I didn’t have my notes open, so I copy and pasted that definition from the internet, but this is the definition my professor gave me:

temporal contiguity – relation between behavior and its consequences

@nikipedia Yes, that does make sense, thanks.

@nikipedia‘s idea was similar to mine and both seem to fit with your definition. It sounds like the mistakes can be misperceptions of causality.

I know, I noticed that they were the same concept, I just wanted to reply and tell @nikipedia thanks for answering.

Ever gone thru a red light when the “walk” light changed?

Is that a literal question, or are you suggesting that as an example?

both

I like that example. It seems more fitting to the question, considering that it is still a response that was conditioned, except it’s being displaced into the wrong situation.

And no I haven’t, but I have started to walk when the red light changed. But only if no cars are coming. :D

Could racism be an example?

Any notion that something will “jinx” something else is probably an example of this mistaken reasoning.

Sex, drugs and alcohol are 3 classic excuses for poor choices people make and subsequently rationalize as justifiable when looking for an easy resolution to stressful situations.

Stress + any of the above 3 as an example will produce your temporal incongruity.

Thanks, everyone!

He didn’t even end up incorporating it into the test. Go figure.