Psychology Exam #2

Ad Hominem

(literally "to the person") argument against the person, or when one fallaciously attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the source of the argument; a flaw in the source somehow ruins the argument itself Ex. You can't believe Jim's argument that the proposed policy would help the economy. Jim doesn't even have a job

What should we evaluate when we analyze arguments?

- the nature of the premises supporting the conclusion (e.g., explanations vs. the strength of the evidence) - the credibility of the sources behind the premises - the relevance of premises to the conclusion - the strength of counterarguments (including the strength of evidence, the credibility of the sources behind counterarguments - the relevance of the counterarguments), and the presence of any logical fallacies and the degree to which they may weaken the argument and counterargument

Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc

(literally "after this, therefore because of this") a type of false cause fallacy in which one argues that one event must be caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event Ex. Every Republican president since Teddy Roosevelt in the early 1900s endured a recession in his first term. Clearly, Republican President do not know how to manage the economy

Part-Whole

Assuming that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts, and whatever is true of the parts must be true of the whole Ex. Every student at the University of California Berkeley is brilliant

Put Downs

Belittling the opposition; name-calling Ex. If you're against Indian Casinos you're either a fool or a racist

Sound arguments are...

(1) deductive, (2) valid, and (3) have ALL TRUE premises

False Dichotomy

(aka the false dilemma fallacy) black and white simplification of an issue; wrongly assumes that there are only 2 possible choices (be careful to not treat continuous variable as dichotomous) Ex. Our funds from the state have been severely cut, and we are faced with a terrible choice. We must either choose the university library or raise tuition. But the library is the vital center of our educational and research activities, and closing the library would mean that our professional schools would have to close. So the library must be kept open at all costs. Thus we have no choice: We must raise tuition

Determining the Credibility of an Expert

- Does the expert have expertise in the same field in which they are giving testimony? - Is the expert an independent party? - Do they have expert credentials? - Do they have specific an firsthand knowledge of the matter upon which expert testimony is being given? - Is the expert using appropriate, accepted, standard methods of analysis?

Hypothesis Testing

can be done by using deductive reasoning (general -> specific); important to look for both confirming and disconfirming evidence

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases

one must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person)

Weak and Inappropriate Analogy

wrongly concluding that one situation or event is similar to another situation or event Ex. The way some prisoners in the U.S. are treated is inhumane - small prison cells, terrible food, practically no exposure to sunlight. If we are going to treat prisoners practically the same as Hitler treated the Jews, are we any better than Nazis?

Inductive Method

you begin with observations and on the basis of those observations formulate a hypothesis (an educated guess about the nature of things)

Hypothesis

a belief or set beliefs about the natural world; often an idea about the way two or more things are related; can be derived through inductive reasoning (specific -> general) Ex. We observe that several kids we know whose parents have recently divorced seem to do more poorly in s school following the divorce. We formulate the hypothesis that divorce is associated with a decrease in school performance

Counterarguments

arguments that refute the conclusion

False Cause

belief that because two things are associated, there must be a cause-and-effect relation between the two Ex. The more churches there are in a city, the more prostitutes there are likely to be in that city. Oh, I understand! With the prostitution problem, a city needs lots of people praying! So, more churches will spring up.

Naturalistic Fallacy

blurs the line between "is" and "should;" involves a leap from is to ought Ex. Nature designed men to be competitive and women to be nurturing, so women ought to stay home to take care of the children and leave politics to men

Moralistic Fallacy

blurs the line between "is" and "should;" involves a leap from ought to is Ex. Western democratic principles hold that men and women ought to be treated equally under the law, and therefore men and women are biologically identical and any study that demonstrates otherwise is a priori false

Deviancy Hypothesis (Peterson and Taylor, 1980)

both early and late maturers are at risk, because development is not in sync with that of peers

What is an argument?

They're made up of statements (phrases or sentences for which it makes sense to ask, "Is this true or false?"); they offer a conclusion and supports that conclusion with premises (reasons)

What kinds of questions do conclusions answer?

WHAT questions; they're often preceded by "conclusion indicators" such as therefore, hence, it follows that, so, consequently, thus, as a result, then, shows that, accordingly, it is clear that, for all those reasons, in summary, etc.

What does the burden of proof deal with?

WHO must prove their case

What kinds of questions do premises answer?

WHY questions; they're often preceded by words such as since, due to the fact that, because, given that, as shown by, for, if, it follows from, whereas, seeing that, as indicated by, the evidence consists of, etc.

Reasoning to an Explanation

attempt to rule out alternative explanations while providing support for the proposed conclusion; offer evidence in support of the conclusion and refute contrary evidence or conclusions (most arguments are this type) Ex. The man was found stabbed to death in the kitchen. There was a knife found beside his body. There was blood on the knife that matched the man. There was also blood on the scene that matched the man's brother's DNA. The brother wrote a hateful letter to the man the previous day. There was no evidence of forcible entry. Conclusion: The man was stabbed by his brother

Association Effects

based on the premise that events occurring together in time/space become associated, so what's true of one must be true of the other; can be used to create "guilt by association" or "virtue by association" Ex. John is a thief. If he's your friend, you must be a thief, too!

Argument from Analogy

because something is true of A it must also be true of B; similarities must be relevant to the conclusion, while dissimilarities may or might not be relevant (also may incorporate weak and inappropriate analogies) Ex. Erin will like the movie "The Three Stooges" because she liked the movie "Dumb and Dumber"

Deductive Method

begin with a hypothesis and make observations (collect data" or "evidence") to test the hypothesis

Appeal to Popularity

If an opinion (or product) is popular, it must be right (good); plays upon the fundamental human need to belong to something or someone Ex. Everyone else on the jury agrees that the defendant is guilty - except you. Be reasonable. Accept the view of the overwhelming majority of the jury

What makes a deductive argument valid?

If you can answer yes to the following question: If you could show that the premises were true, then would the conclusion also have to be true?

Stage Termination Hypothesis Evidence (boys)

compared to late maturing boys, early maturing boys are more popular, more likely to be leaders, more self-confident (but also more substance abuse, antisocial behavior, anger control problems) (pseudo-adult hypermasculinity?)

Stage Termination Hypothesis Evidence (girls)

compared to late maturing girls, early maturing girls have poorer body image, higher depression rates, more substance abuse, earlier sexual intercourse, more popular (especially with boys)

False Assumption

contain information that is intentionally misleading or known to be false (illegitimate)

Permission Schema

contingency relationship in which if something is true, then you have permission to do something else Ex. If you wash the car, you can borrow it tonight

Obligation Schema

contingency relationships in which if something is true, then you have an obligation to do something else Ex. If she gives you a present, you are obligated to thank her

Reasoning

critical thinking skill that tells us "what follows;" when we reason, we use our knowledge about one or more related statements that we can reasonably believe are true (premises) to determine if another statement, the conclusion (which is an inferred belief that is derived from other statements), is true

Observational Studies

studies that are often done with intact groups that we wish to study; these studies can tell us about systematic relationships between variables (we talk about these variables as being "associated" or "correlated" with one another) Ex. People with Alzheimer's; drug users; pregnant women; smokers; vegetarians; etc.

Dependent Variable (DV)

the behavior we are interested in studying that we think is affected by (or dependent on) the independent variable (effect)

Population

the entire group one wishes to study

Sample

the subset of the population that is actually studied; the findings of the sample are generalized to the larger population

Independent Variable (IV)

the variable that are observed or manipulated by the researcher that are thought to affect the behavior of interest (cause)

What are counterarguments typically used for?

to weaken an attack on the argument since they allow the person to voice a response to them, allow the person to appear less one-sided because they are willing to consider the opponent's arguments, and considering counterarguments permits fair-minded people to respect and take seriously their opponent's arguments

Who bears the burden of proof?

typically whoever makes the claim, brings the accusation or asserts the theory, though that's not always the case

Incomplete Comparison

use of evaluative terms without a specific comparison group; involves a vague claim and is both very common and legal in advertising Ex. The quicker picker upper (quicker than what?)

Knowing the Unknowable

use of information that is impossible to ascertain Ex. The number of unreported rapes on campus has doubled in the past 5 years

Appeals to Pride/Snobbery

use of praise or flattery to persuade someone to adopt a particular view or buy a specific product Ex. "I know that you are a busy person. So I'm not going to waste valuable time..."

Appeal to Pity

use of tactics to encourage pity for some cause Ex. Please don't give me an F. My boyfriend just broke up with me and my parents are getting a divorce!

Positive Correlation

variables are related in such a way that as one increases the other also increases OR decreases in one are accompanied by decreases in another Ex. Study time and test scores are positively related, since more study time generally means an increased score on tests

Negative Correlation

variables are related in such a way that as one increases the other decreases Ex. Work (employment) hours and test scores are negatively related, since the more hours worked while attending school usually results in a worse score on tests

Variability

variance or difference in the responses we obtain

Circular (tautologous) Reasoning

when the premise is simply a restatement of the conclusion, it's also called begging the question; a tautology is the needless repetition of an idea, statement or word without providing further classification or support for the idea, statement or word Ex. We need to raise the speed limit because the current legal speed is too low

Law of Small Numbers (Tversky and Kahneman, 1971)

willingness to generalize from small samples

Maternal Smoking During Pregnancy and Offspring IQ (Breslau et al., 2005)

Researchers compared IQ scores of children whose mothers smoked during their pregnancy to IQ scores of children whose mothers did not smoke during their pregnancy (IQ tested at ages 6, 11, and 17) Results: kids whose moms smoked had significantly LOWER IQ scores compared to kids whose moms did not smoke Possible Confounding Variables: Mothers who smoked during their pregnancy had lower IQ scores and less education compared to mothers who did not smoke during their pregnancy When researchers controlled for mother's IQ scores and education, there was NO difference in their children's IQ scores

Sieratzki and Woll Research (1996)

Suggests that there's more to Lee Salk's research, indicating that other factors are also at play. The brain's right hemisphere processes emotional gestures and facial expressions more rapidly and more accurately (note that the right hemisphere is attached to the left side of the body). When a baby is cradled with their head on the left, they see the left side of the mother's face, they hear the mother's voice with the left hear, and they can hear the mother's heartbeat

Stage Termination Hypothesis (Peskin and Levin, 1972)

early maturation (not late maturation) is bad because it interrupts normal course of development

Random Sample

every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample

Validity

extent to which a measurement of a variable reflects the theoretical meaning of that variable (i.e., does the test measure what it was designed to measure?) Ex. Is GPA a good (valid) measure of performance in school?

Slippery Slope/Continuum

faulty argument that one change releases an avalanche of adverse changes, like a domino effect; claim that an innocent-looking first step will lead to bad consequences without giving plausible reasons Ex. If the "experts" decide today that we should have fluoride in our tea, coffee, frozen orange juice, lemonade, and every cell in our bodies, what's in store for us tomorrow?

Fallacies

flaws in reasoning; tricks of persuasion, often used in an attempt to change opinion or beliefs by means of unsound reasoning techniques

Hasty Generalization

generalizing based on insufficient evidence (generalizing involves reaching broad conclusions based on specific available evidence); sometimes it's related to the whole-part fallacy (conclusions about a whole population are drawn from a very small sample size), and it can lead to racial prejudice Ex. A person travels through a town for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. The person reports that there are no adult residents in the town

Inductive Arguments

have premises that only imply the conclusion; never have guaranteed conclusions; cannot be valid or sound (no guaranteed conclusions) and can be reliable (likely to be true) Premises (specific statements) -> Conclusions (more general statements)

What question does the appeal to authority fallacy raise?

how to determine whether one should legitimately be considered an expert

Appeal to Tradition

if a product (or viewpoint) has been around for many years it must be the best, since it's seen as "passing the test of time;" often based on our comfort with things that are familiar, and is partly responsible for the very high rate of incumbent re-elections and the fact that people usually choose the "name brand" over the generic Ex. GAIN Detergent: Wash clothes just like mom used to

Appeal to Novelty

if it's new, it must be good; just as tradition carries no authority, neither does novelty Ex. Pepsi One

Generalizing from a Sample

if it's true of the sample, it's likely true of the whole group (should ask "Does the sample adequately represent the whole group"); making a general statement based on specific observations - requires an inductive leap Ex. Bill Clinton is a politician and he lied to us when he was in office. Therefore, politicians can't be trusted

Statements

in any argument, they can be sorted into different elements or components (e.g., conclusions, premises, qualifiers)

Correlation Coefficients

indicate both the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables (number=strength; positive/negative sign=direction)

Sensitivity

is the measurement precise/sensitive enough to reflect small changes we might expect to find in the dependent variable given the differences in the independent variable?

The problem with explaining, or explaining as knowing...

many people believe they know things based on how well they believe they can explain them, but an apparently good explanation (something that makes sense to you) is not evidence in and of itself

Soundness (deductive arguments)

measures the quality of a deductive argument

Nominal Fallacy

naming a behavior or phenomenon as a way to explain the behavior or phenomenon; typically involves circular reasoning Ex. Why does he have difficulty falling asleep? Because he has insomnia

N

number of subjects in the sample (small samples are less reliable since they're less likely to reflect the variability that exists in the population)

What studies are correlation statistics often used in?

observational studies

Appeal to Ignorance

occurs when one argues that a claim is true because it has not been proved false; raises the question of who bears the greater burden to prove that they are right Ex. I know that aliens exist. No one has ever proven that aliens don't exist

Appeal to Authority

occurs when the person giving "expert" testimony is not an expert in the area in which they are giving the testimony (also called the "testimonial fallacy"); also occurs when it's impossible to ascertain if the expert is truly an expert (not enough detailed information is provided) Ex. Any actor or sports star who says, "I tried it and it worked for me."

Red Herring

often involves a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated; distracts people from the real issue and sends them off on irrelevant pursuits Ex. Accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Bill replies, "Nothing I do ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said you didn't like the color"

Card Stacking

omitting information that supports the opposite view Ex. A newspaper prints many articles supporting the side of a political issue that the publisher of the newspaper favors and prints few (or no) articles supporting the opposition's side of the issue

What does validity depend on for deductive arguments?

on the form of the argument (not the specific context)

Standard of Proof in Civil Cases

one must prove their case based on a preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely to be true than not true)

Subjects

participants in a study or experiment

What are assumptions normally based on?

personal expectations, personal histories, biases, or social conventions; some assumptions allow one to consider what will happen if they prove to be true (a legitimate use of assumption)

Irrelevant Reasoning

reasons given in support of a conclusion that are unrelated to the conclusion (aka "non-sequitur" which is Latin for "it does not follow") Ex. We should require every student to study a foreign language, because it is important that we provide our students with a quality education

Qualifiers

restrictions or limitations placed on the conclusion; circumstances that dictate when the conclusion applies

What are the two main types of arguments?

Deductive and Inductive

What does the standard of proof deal with?

HOW CONVINCINGLY you must prove your case

Representative Sample

sample that has characteristics similar to the population on important variables that could have an effect on the outcome being measured

Assumption

statements that are unproven and provide no evidence; they're often accepted as true by everyone involved in a discussion or situation

Arguments and their Primary Objective

Argument: the use of one or more premises to support a conclusion or a series of statements used to establish a claim; arguments must have at least one premise statement and one conclusion Primary Objective: persuade someone to accept a certain proposition or take a certain course of action

Determining the Credibility of Internet Sources

Evaluate: 1) Authority - Who is sponsoring the website?What are the author's qualifications? 2) Accuracy - Where did the information come from? 3) Objectivity - Is the site a public service or a "sales pitch"? 4) Currency - When was the site last revisited? Is the information still relevant 5) Coverage - Is the information complete?

Lee Salk's Research (1973)

Observations: Rhesus monkey at zoo held baby on the left side on 40 out of 42 occasions. Out of 287 human mothers (within 4 days of giving birth), 237 or 82% held babies on the left side Hypothesis: Mothers hold their baby on the left side to keep dominant (right) hand free Findings: Mothers held baby on left side regardless of dominant hand (83% righties, 78% lefties) Alternative Hypothesis: They were closer to their mother's heart Controlled Experiment: Baby nursery at NY City hospital, where the first group of newborns listened to a continuous sound of the human heartbeat over loudspeaker, while the other group listened to nothing Response: Weight gain (or loss) after 4 days Results: Infants exposed to the sound of the heartbeat gained more weight (lost less) and cried less

"The giving of reasons"

What arguments have been called

Convenience Sample

a readily available sample; may or may not be biased Ex. Measure reasoning ability of young adult males; sample male college students

Biased Sample

a sample that isn't representative of the population Ex. Estimate intelligence of students at a h.s.; sample kids in honors classes

Confounding Variable (extraneous variable)

a variable that we have not explicitly considered or controlled that affects our results in some way

Straw Man

a weak form of an opponent's argument is set up and then knocked down; the opponent's argument is distorted, making it easier to attack Ex. "Senator Smith says that we should cut the Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that"

Deductive Arguments

premises that clearly lead to the conclusion; sometimes have guaranteed conclusions Premises (general statements) -> Conclusion (more specific statements) Ex. All people who care about politics are going to vote in the election. You care about politics. Therefore, you're going to vote in the election Ex. The picture is above the desk. The desk is above the floor. So, the picture is above the floor

Reliability

addresses the consistency or stability of the measurement Ex. Does the Stanford-Binet intelligence test provide a consistent measure of intelligence? Can be assessed using test-retest reliability, parallel forms (Form A vs. Form B) reliability, etc.

Variable

any characteristic that can take on more than one value; they're the concepts we study

Types of Inductive Arguments

argument from analogy, generalizing from a sample, reasoning to an explanation

Genuine Slippery Slope (not a fallacy!)

argument involving how and why one change will lead to a series of bad consequences - plausible reasons are given Ex. In 1989, the Supreme Court struck down - as unconstitutional - state laws that make it a crime to burn the U.S. flag as part of a protest or demonstration. As a result, you have a right to burn the U.S. flag in protest. The court ruled that since burning the flag is an expression of political protest, it's protected under the 1st Amendment. If the flag is given unique status, then what else might be given this status? State flags? Copies of the Presidential seal? Copies of the Constitution or Declaration of Independence? And who would decide what is special enough to be given this status?

Golden Mean

argument that the center between two extremes (the "middle of the road," "moderate" or "compromise " position) is best Ex. Prior to the U.S. Civil War, abolitionists wanted to completely abolish slavery. Others wanted no restrictions on slavery at all. Finally, a third group wanted to continue slavery in the states where it already existed but not allow slavery in the new western territories

Operational Definition

provides the explicit way the concept is being defined or measured for the purpose of our study