scholarly journals Confirmation bias without rhyme or reason

Synthese ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Michel ◽  
Megan A. K. Peters

Abstract Having a confirmation bias sometimes leads us to hold inaccurate beliefs. So, the puzzle goes: why do we have it? According to the influential argumentative theory of reasoning, confirmation bias emerges because the primary function of reason is not to form accurate beliefs, but to convince others that we’re right. A crucial prediction of the theory, then, is that confirmation bias should be found only in the reasoning domain. In this article, we argue that there is evidence that confirmation bias does exist outside the reasoning domain. This undermines the main evidential basis for the argumentative theory of reasoning. In presenting the relevant evidence, we explore why having such confirmation bias may not be maladaptive.

Author(s):  
Martha Whitesmith

Chapter four provides details of a meta-analysis conducted into serial position effects. The meta-analysis also identified whether there are any significant differences in the proportion of bias under different analytical conditions between belief adjustment conducted in an intelligence scenario and belief adjustment conducted in non-intelligence scenarios. The chapter argues that there is no compelling evidential basis to suggest that serial position effects or confirmation bias affect intelligence analysis differently from non-intelligence analysis. It will show that the analytical conditions of volume of information, reliance on recall, accountability and type of information likely have an impact on serial position effects. The results undermine key assumptions in predominant predictions models. This includes the belief-adjustment model for serial position effects (Hogarth and Einhorn 1992).


2021 ◽  
pp. 395-410
Author(s):  
Frank Zenker

This chapter examines the psychological studies of biases and de-biasing measures in human decision-making with special reference to adjudicative factfinding. Research shows that factfinders are prone to cognitive biases (such as anchoring, framing, base-rate neglect, and confirmation bias) as well as social biases. Driven by this research, multiple studies have examined the extent to which those biases can be mitigated by de-biasing measures like “consider the opposite” and “give reasons.” After a brief overview of the research, the author points to the problematic evidential basis and identifies future research needs, and concludes that empirical research on de-biasing measures has so far delivered less than one would hope for.


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 250-250
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Fandel ◽  
Maria Pfnuer ◽  
Claudia Corinth ◽  
Michael Ansorge ◽  
Sebastian W. Melchior ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertram Gawronski ◽  
Roland Deutsch ◽  
Etienne P. LeBel ◽  
Kurt R. Peters

Over the last decade, implicit measures of mental associations (e.g., Implicit Association Test, sequential priming) have become increasingly popular in many areas of psychological research. Even though successful applications provide preliminary support for the validity of these measures, their underlying mechanisms are still controversial. The present article addresses the role of a particular mechanism that is hypothesized to mediate the influence of activated associations on task performance in many implicit measures: response interference (RI). Based on a review of relevant evidence, we argue that RI effects in implicit measures depend on participants’ attention to association-relevant stimulus features, which in turn can influence the reliability and the construct validity of these measures. Drawing on a moderated-mediation model (MMM) of task performance in RI paradigms, we provide several suggestions on how to address these problems in research using implicit measures.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinbae Shin ◽  
Sohee Heo ◽  
Ho-Ki Lee ◽  
Richard Tyler ◽  
In-Ki Jin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document