Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain statement is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right. [4] Researchers observed the illusory truth effect's impact even on participants who knew the correct answer to begin with but were persuaded to believe ...
The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute. [ 19 ] Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency.
The #1 Mistake To Avoid When Trying To Convince Someone To Do Something. Manipulation or coercive tactics are a no-go in Dr. Nobile's book. "Such tactics destroy trust in relationships, foster ...
The purpose of arguments is to convince a person that something is the case by providing reasons for this belief. [25] [26] Many arguments in natural language do not explicitly state all the premises. Instead, the premises are often implicitly assumed, especially if they seem obvious and belong to common sense.
In response to unfair or abusive behaviour from a separate individual or group to the person: "I must have done something wrong if they treat me like this." Based on anecdotal and survey evidence, John Banja states that the medical field features a disproportionate amount of rationalization invoked in the "covering up" of mistakes. [8]
People prefer to be free to select what they like. When that freedom is taken away, they are motivated to restore it. [9] Psychological reactance can be better explained as the idea that an item will be wanted more if people are told they cannot have it, [10] which can relate to reverse psychology on some levels. Another influence technique ...
In fact, the raters may have even thought that there was something wrong with the people expressing the alternative response. [3] In the ten years after the influential Ross et al. study, close to 50 papers were published with data on the false-consensus effect. [15] Theoretical approaches were also expanded.
The person eventually asks for a larger favor (e.g., a donation or to buy something far more expensive). The unwritten social contract between the victim and perpetrator causes the victim to feel obligated to reciprocate by agreeing to do the larger favor or buy the more expensive gift.