Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in scientific research based on inductive reasoning (the gradual accumulation of supportive evidence). Similarly, a police detective may identify a suspect early in an investigation, but then may only seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence.
The urge to do the opposite of what someone wants one to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain one's freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology). Reactive devaluation: Devaluing proposals only because they purportedly originated with an adversary. Social comparison bias
Counterfactual thinking is a concept in psychology that involves the human tendency to create possible alternatives to life events that have already occurred; something that is contrary to what actually happened.
Some researchers include a metacognitive component in their definition. In this view, the Dunning–Kruger effect is the thesis that those who are incompetent in a given area tend to be ignorant of their incompetence, i.e., they lack the metacognitive ability to become aware of their incompetence.
The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined. [5] Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For ...
As Allport put it, “a differentiated category is the opposite of a stereotype.” [3] Thus, the more a person learns about a minority category of people, the more differentiated that category is and the more resistant it is to being reduced to a negative stereotype. The Contact Hypothesis has been supported by decades of research.
Inoculation is a theory that explains how attitudes and beliefs can be made more resistant to future challenges. For an inoculation message to be successful, the recipient experiences threat (a recognition that a held attitude or belief is vulnerable to change) and is exposed to and/or engages in refutational processes (preemptive refutation, that is, defenses against potential counterarguments).
This is the problem of induction. Suppose we want to put the hypothesis that all swans are white to the test. We come across a white swan. We cannot validly argue (or induce) from "here is a white swan" to "all swans are white"; doing so would require a logical fallacy such as, for example, affirming the consequent. [3]