DOCSLIB.ORG

Psychometric Barriers: Response Biases Bias

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Psychometric Barriers: Response Biases Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Response Psychometric Barriers: Response Biases Bias Types of Response Biases Acquiescence Bias Extreme and PSYC3302: Psychological Measurement and Its Moderate Responding Applications Social Desirability Malingering Random Responding Guessing Mark Hurlstone Univeristy of Western Australia Methods For Coping With Response Bias Week 7 Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Learning Objectives Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • Introduce problem of response biases: Response Bias • Acquiescence Bias Types of • Extreme and Moderate Responding Response Biases • Social Desirability Acquiescence Bias • Extreme and Malingering Moderate Responding • Random Responding Social Desirability Malingering • Guessing Random Responding Guessing • Methods that have been used to detect the problem Methods For Coping With • Methods that have been used to deal with the problem Response Bias Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Response Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • Imagine that you have taken a personality test as part of a job interview and you were asked to respond to these Response Bias questions: Types of 1 "Have you every stolen anything from an employer?" Response Biases 2 "Do you always tell the truth to others?" Acquiescence Bias Extreme and Moderate • The true answer to 1 may be "yes" and the true answer to 2 Responding Social Desirability may be "no" Malingering Random Responding • Guessing But your actual responses might be biased by your desire to Methods For impress the employer Coping With Response • Such a bias would affect the validity of interpretations of your Bias Managing Testing questionnaire responses as reflecting honesty or integrity Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Response Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • We want to interpret responses on psychological measures as being an accurate reflection of individuals’ true Response Bias psychological characteristics Types of • However, responses to psychological measures can be Response Biases systematically biased for a variety of reasons Acquiescence Bias Extreme and Moderate • These biases are important because they can harm the Responding Social Desirability psychometric quality of psychological tests Malingering Random Responding • Guessing Specifically, they can diminish test reliability and the validity Methods For of test score interpretations Coping With Response • Response biases can therefore damage our ability to use Bias Managing Testing psychological measures in a meaningful way Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Types of Response Biases Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Response Bias • There are various different types of response biases Types of • Response They can be affected by: Biases Acquiescence Bias • the testing content Extreme and Moderate • the testing format Responding Social Desirability • the testing context Malingering • Random Responding respondent’s conscious efforts to distort "reality" Guessing • unconscious factors that bias responses Methods For Coping With Response Bias Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Types of Response Biases Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Response • The response biases that will be discussed in this lecture Bias are: Types of Response Biases • Acquiescence Bias Acquiescence Bias • Extreme and Moderate Responding Extreme and Moderate • Responding Social Desirability Social Desirability • Malingering Malingering Random Responding • Random Responding Guessing • Guessing Methods For Coping With Response Bias Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Types of Response Biases Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Response • The response biases that will be discussed in this lecture Bias are: Types of Response Biases • Acquiescence Bias Acquiescence Bias • Extreme and Moderate Responding Extreme and Moderate • Responding Social Desirability Social Desirability • Malingering Malingering Random Responding • Random Responding Guessing • Guessing Methods For Coping With Response Bias Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • Acquiescence bias occurs when an individual agrees with statements without regard for the meaning of those Response Bias statements Types of • Response For example, an inventory may have items such as: Biases Acquiescence Bias • "I enjoy my job" Extreme and Moderate • "I dislike my job" Responding Social Desirability Malingering • In its extreme form, people who engage in acquiescence will Random Responding Guessing respond "strongly agree" to both of these items even though Methods For they are polar opposites of the same construct Coping With Response • These are people who will agree or say "yes" to just about Bias Managing Testing everything Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement • Imagine that an organisational psychologist is interested in mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au the association between job satisfaction and perceived prestige Response Bias • Suppose job satisfaction is measured with the following Types of items: Response Biases 1 "I really enjoy my work" Acquiescence Bias Extreme and 2 "I find my work personally fulfilling" Moderate Responding 3 Social Desirability "In general, I am satisfied with the day to day aspects of Malingering my job" Random Responding Guessing 4 "There is very little I would change about my job" Methods For Coping With • Response are made on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly Response Bias disagree; 7 = strongly agree) Managing Testing Context • Scores on a each item are simply summed to give an overall Managing Test Content measure of job satisfaction Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • The items’ phrasing is an important issue in the job Response Bias satisfaction scale Types of • Note that all items are "positively keyed"—a positive Response Biases (agreement) response to each item reflects a relatively high Acquiescence Bias Extreme and level of the construct (job satisfaction) being assessed Moderate Responding Social Desirability • This renders the questionnaire susceptible to the effects of Malingering Random Responding an acquiescence response bias Guessing • Methods For Consider a hypothetical "all-seeing" example in which we Coping With know which respondents exhibited an acquiescence bias Response Bias Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Response Bias Types of Response Biases Acquiescence Bias Extreme and Moderate Responding Social Desirability Malingering Random Responding Guessing Methods For Coping With Response Bias Managing Testing JS = job satisfaction; PP = perceived prestige Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • Response In this "all-seeing" example, we know that participants 1 and Bias 4 were acquiescent during responding Types of Response • Both participants agreed strongly with all four items even Biases Acquiescence Bias though they honestly might not be satisfied with their jobs Extreme and Moderate Responding • By contrast, participant 2 also agreed with all four items Social Desirability Malingering because she is genuinely satisfied with her job Random Responding Guessing • In practice, we would not be able to distinguish the Methods For acquiescent responders from the valid responders Coping With Response Bias Managing Testing Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Response Bias Types of Response Biases Acquiescence Bias Extreme and Moderate Responding Social Desirability Malingering Random Responding Guessing Methods For Coping With Response Bias Managing Testing JS = job satisfaction; PP = perceived prestige Context Managing Test Content Specialised Tests [email protected] Psychological Measurement Acquiescence Bias Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • Response In this "all-seeing" example, we know that participants 1 and Bias 4 were acquiescent during responding Types of Response • Both participants agreed strongly with all four items even Biases Acquiescence Bias though they honestly might not be satisfied with their jobs Extreme and Moderate Responding • By contrast, participant 2 also agreed with all four items Social Desirability Malingering because she is genuinely satisfied with her job Random Responding Guessing • In practice, we would not be able to distinguish the Methods For acquiescent responders from the valid responders Coping With Response
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (HCW) Surveys in Humanitarian Contexts in Lmics
    Analytics for Operations working group GUIDANCE BRIEF Guidance for Health Care Worker (HCW) Surveys in humanitarian contexts in LMICs Developed by the Analytics for Operations Working Group to support those working with communities and healthcare workers in humanitarian and emergency contexts. This document has been developed for response actors working in humanitarian contexts who seek rapid approaches to gathering evidence about the experience of healthcare workers, and the communities of which they are a part. Understanding healthcare worker experience is critical to inform and guide humanitarian programming and effective strategies to promote IPC, identify psychosocial support needs. This evidence also informs humanitarian programming that interacts with HCWs and facilities such as nutrition, health reinforcement, communication, SGBV and gender. In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), healthcare workers (HCW) are often faced with limited resources, equipment, performance support and even formal training to provide the life-saving work expected of them. In humanitarian contexts1, where human resources are also scarce, HCWs may comprise formally trained doctors, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, allied health professionals etc. as well as community members who perform formal health worker related duties with little or no trainingi. These HCWs frequently work in contexts of multiple public health crises, including COVID-19. Their work will be affected by availability of resources (limited supplies, materials), behaviour and emotion (fear), flows of (mis)information (e.g. understanding of expected infection prevention and control (IPC) measures) or services (healthcare policies, services and use). Multiple factors can therefore impact patients, HCWs and their families, not only in terms of risk of exposure to COVID-19, but secondary health, socio-economic and psycho-social risks, as well as constraints that interrupt or hinder healthcare provision such as physical distancing practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonresponse Bias and Trip Generation Models
    64 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1412 Nonresponse Bias and Trip Generation Models PIYUSHIMITA THAKURIAH, As:H1sH SEN, SnM S66T, AND EDWARD CHRISTOPHER There is serious concern over the fact that travel surveys often On the other hand, if the model does not satisfy these con­ overrepresent smaller households with higher incomes and better ditions, bias will occur even if there is a 100 percent response education levels and, in general, that nonresponse is nonrandom. rate. These conditions are satisfied by the model if the func­ However, when the data are used to build linear models, such as trip generation models, and the model is correctly specified, tional form of the model is correct and all important explan­ estimates of parameters are unbiased regardless of the nature of atory variables are included. the respondents, and the issues of how response rates and non­ Because categorical models do not have any problems with response bias are ameliorated. The more important task then is their functional form, and weighting and related issues are the complete specification of the model, without leaving out var­ taken care of, the authors prefer categorical trip generation iables that have some effect on the variable to be predicted. The models. This preference is discussed in a later section. There­ theoretical basis for this reasoning is given along with an example fore, the issue that remains when assessing bias in estimates of how bias may be assessed in estimates of trip generation model parameters. Some of the methods used are quite standard, but from categorical trip generation models is whether the model the manner in which these and other more nonstandard methods includes all the relevant independent variables or at least all have been systematically put together to assess bias in estimates important predictors.
    [Show full text]
  • Equally Flexible and Optimal Response Bias in Older Compared to Younger Adults
    AGING AND RESPONSE BIAS Equally Flexible and Optimal Response Bias in Older Compared to Younger Adults Roderick Garton, Angus Reynolds, Mark R. Hinder, Andrew Heathcote Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania Accepted for publication in Psychology and Aging, 8 February 2019 © 2019, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/pag0000339 Author Note Roderick Garton, Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia; Angus Reynolds, Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia; Mark R. Hinder, Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia; Andrew Heathcote, Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roderick Garton, University of Tasmania Private Bag 30, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001. Email: [email protected] This study was supported by Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP160101891 (Andrew Heathcote) and Future Fellowship FT150100406 (Mark R. Hinder), and by Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarships (Angus Reynolds and Roderick Garton). The authors would like to thank Matthew Gretton for help with data acquisition, Luke Strickland and Yi-Shin Lin for help with data analysis, and Claire Byrne for help with study administration. The trial-level data for the experiment reported in this manuscript are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9hwu2/). 1 AGING AND RESPONSE BIAS Abstract Base-rate neglect is a failure to sufficiently bias decisions toward a priori more likely options.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Health Care Worker (HCW) Surveys in Humanitarian
    Analytics for Operations & COVID-19 Research Roadmap Social Science working groups GUIDANCE BRIEF Guidance for Health Care Worker (HCW) Surveys in humanitarian contexts in LMICs Developed by the Analytics for Operations & COVID-19 Research Roadmap Social Science working groups to support those working with communities and healthcare workers in humanitarian and emergency contexts. This document has been developed for response actors working in humanitarian contexts who seek rapid approaches to gathering evidence about the experience of healthcare workers, and the communities of which they are a part. Understanding healthcare worker experience is critical to inform and guide humanitarian programming and effective strategies to promote IPC, identify psychosocial support needs. This evidence also informs humanitarian programming that interacts with HCWs and facilities such as nutrition, health reinforcement, communication, SGBV and gender. In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), healthcare workers (HCW) are often faced with limited resources, equipment, performance support and even formal training to provide the life-saving work expected of them. In humanitarian contexts1, where human resources are also scarce, HCWs may comprise formally trained doctors, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, allied health professionals etc. as well as community members who perform formal health worker related duties with little or no trainingi. These HCWs frequently work in contexts of multiple public health crises, including COVID-19. Their work will be affected
    [Show full text]
  • Straight Until Proven Gay: a Systematic Bias Toward Straight Categorizations in Sexual Orientation Judgments
    ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL COGNITION Straight Until Proven Gay: A Systematic Bias Toward Straight Categorizations in Sexual Orientation Judgments David J. Lick Kerri L. Johnson New York University University of California, Los Angeles Perceivers achieve above chance accuracy judging others’ sexual orientations, but they also exhibit a notable response bias by categorizing most targets as straight rather than gay. Although a straight categorization bias is evident in many published reports, it has never been the focus of systematic inquiry. The current studies therefore document this bias and test the mechanisms that produce it. Studies 1–3 revealed the straight categorization bias cannot be explained entirely by perceivers’ attempts to match categorizations to the number of gay targets in a stimulus set. Although perceivers were somewhat sensitive to base rate information, their tendency to categorize targets as straight persisted when they believed each target had a 50% chance of being gay (Study 1), received explicit information about the base rate of gay targets in a stimulus set (Study 2), and encountered stimulus sets with varying base rates of gay targets (Study 3). The remaining studies tested an alternate mechanism for the bias based upon perceivers’ use of gender heuristics when judging sexual orientation. Specifically, Study 4 revealed the range of gendered cues compelling gay judgments is smaller than the range of gendered cues compelling straight judgments despite participants’ acknowledgment of equal base rates for gay and straight targets. Study 5 highlighted perceptual experience as a cause of this imbalance: Exposing perceivers to hyper-gendered faces (e.g., masculine men) expanded the range of gendered cues compelling gay categorizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: EXTRAVERSION PREDICTS REWARD SENSITIVITY
    Running head: EXTRAVERSION PREDICTS REWARD SENSITIVITY Extraversion but not Depression Predicts Reward Sensitivity: Revisiting the Measurement of Anhedonic Phenotypes Submitted: 6/xx/2020 EXTRAVERSION PREDICTS REWARD SENSITIVITY 2 Abstract RecentLy, increasing efforts have been made to define and measure dimensionaL phenotypes associated with psychiatric disorders. One example is a probabiListic reward task deveLoped by PizzagaLLi et aL. (2005) to assess anhedonia, by measuring participants’ responses to a differentiaL reinforcement schedule. This task has been used in many studies, which have connected blunted reward response in the task to depressive symptoms, across cLinicaL groups and in the generaL population. The current study attempted to replicate these findings in a large community sample and aLso investigated possible associations with Extraversion, a personaLity trait Linked theoreticaLLy and empiricaLLy to reward sensitivity. Participants (N = 299) completed the probabiListic reward task, as weLL as the Beck Depression Inventory, PersonaLity Inventory for the DSM-5, Big Five Inventory, and Big Five Aspect ScaLes. Our direct replication attempts used bivariate anaLyses of observed variables and ANOVA modeLs. FolLow-up and extension anaLyses used structuraL equation modeLs to assess reLations among Latent reward sensitivity, depression, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. No significant associations were found between reward sensitivity (i.e., response bias) and depression, thus faiLing to replicate previous findings. Reward sensitivity (both modeLed as response bias aggregated across blocks and as response bias controlLing for baseLine) showed positive associations with Extraversion, but not Neuroticism. Findings suggest reward sensitivity as measured by this probabiListic reward task may be reLated primariLy to Extraversion and its pathologicaL manifestations, rather than to depression per se, consistent with existing modeLs that conceptuaLize depressive symptoms as combining features of Neuroticism and low Extraversion.
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: GENERAL MISCONCEPTIONS and THINKING STYLES 1
    Running head: GENERAL MISCONCEPTIONS AND THINKING STYLES 1 A new measure of general misconceptions: Relations with rational, intuitive, critical thinking, and monetary incentives Marle Wortelboer Master thesis Economic Psychology Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences 1st Supervisor: W.W.A. Sleegers 2nd Supervisor: F. van Leeuwen March 22th 2019 GENERAL MISCONCEPTIONS AND THINKING STYLES 2 Abstract Past research indicated several issues regarding measurements of (psychological) misconceptions. In this paper, it was aimed to develop a new Test of General Knowledge and Misconceptions (TOGKAM) based on recent suggestions to address previous limitations of Bensley et al. (2014). In order to validate this TOGKAM, relations with rational- and intuitive thinking styles and critical thinking dispositions were tested. It was hypothesized that an Intuitive-Experiential thinking style was positively correlated with TOGKAM scores, whereas a Rational-Analytic thinking style and Critical Thinking dispositions were negatively correlated with TOGKAM scores. In addition, it was examined whether monetary incentives decreased the endorsement of misconceptions. Hypothesized was, that incentivized participants were more likely to use rational and analytic thinking styles and subsequently endorsed fewer misconceptions. Results of this study supported all the hypotheses. Keywords: misconceptions, intuitive- and rational thinking styles, critical thinking, dual- processing. GENERAL MISCONCEPTIONS AND THINKING STYLES 3 A new measure of general misconceptions: Relations with rational, intuitive, critical thinking, and monetary incentives Misconceptions are widely held beliefs that contradict established scientific evidence (Gardner & Brown, 2013; Sak, 2011). Misconceptions, or sometimes called myths, are stable and often deeply rooted beliefs about the world. Common misconceptions such as ‘bats are blind and navigate through echolocation’ or ‘the Chinese wall is the only man-made structure visible from space with the naked eye, are often part of ‘folk wisdom’ (McCutcheon, 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Belief Innuences on Reasoning and Judgment: a Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias
    Prior Belief Innuences on Reasoning and Judgment: A Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias Walter Cabral Sa A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Education University of Toronto O Copyright by Walter C.Si5 1999 National Library Bibliothèque nationaIe of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue WePington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON KtA ON4 Canada Canada Your file Votre rëfërence Our fi& Notre réterence The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libraq of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microforni, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor subçtantial extracts fi-om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Prior Belief Influences on Reasoning and Judgment: A Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias Doctor of Philosophy, 1999 Walter Cabral Sa Graduate Department of Education University of Toronto Belief bias occurs when reasoning or judgments are found to be overly infiuenced by prior belief at the expense of a normatively prescribed accommodation of dl the relevant data.
    [Show full text]
  • Thinking and Reasoning
    Thinking and Reasoning Thinking and Reasoning ■ An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making Ken Manktelow First published 2012 British Library Cataloguing in Publication by Psychology Press Data 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication by Psychology Press Data 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Manktelow, K. I., 1952– Thinking and reasoning : an introduction [www.psypress.com] to the psychology of reason, Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & judgment and decision making / Ken Francis Group, an informa business Manktelow. p. cm. © 2012 Psychology Press Includes bibliographical references and Typeset in Century Old Style and Futura by index. Refi neCatch Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk 1. Reasoning (Psychology) Cover design by Andrew Ward 2. Thought and thinking. 3. Cognition. 4. Decision making. All rights reserved. No part of this book may I. Title. be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any BF442.M354 2012 form or by any electronic, mechanical, or 153.4'2--dc23 other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and 2011031284 recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing ISBN: 978-1-84169-740-6 (hbk) from the publishers. ISBN: 978-1-84169-741-3 (pbk) Trademark notice : Product or corporate ISBN: 978-0-203-11546-6 (ebk) names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
    [Show full text]
  • Selective Hypothesis Testing
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1998,5(2), 197-220 Selective hypothesis testing DAVID M. SANBONMATSU and STEVEN S. POSAVAC University ofUtah, Salt Lake City, Utah FRANK R. KARDES University ofCincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio and SUSAN p. MANTEL University ofToledo, Toledo, Ohio A diverse set ofbiases that have been found to characterize judgment may be similarly mediated by a process ofselective hypothesis testing. Ourpaper begins with a definition ofselective hypothesis test­ ing and an explanation ofhow andwhen this process leads to error. We then review a diverse and often disconnected set offmdings in the person perception, judgment, cognition, attitudes, attribution, and rule discovery literatures thatcanbe explained by this process, Finally, we examine the question ofwhy the selective testing of hypotheses occurs. Although the psychological literature suggests that selec­ tive hypothesis testing contributes to a variety of errors, in many contexts it may be a useful and effi­ cient strategy that leads to satisfactory judgment. The proliferation ofresearch on human judgment dur­ Although a vast body of research is reviewed that indi­ ing the last three decades has led to the identification of cates that a multitude oferrors may result from selective a multiplicity of errors that may characterize the obser­ hypothesis testing, in general this judgmental strategy is vations, interpretations, and evaluations ofeveryday life not necessarily a bad one. As we shall suggest, in many (see, e,g" Kahneman & Tversky, 1982; Nisbett & Ross, contexts
    [Show full text]
  • Validity & Ethics
    Experimenter Expectancy Effects Data Collection: Validity & Ethics A kind of “self-fulfilling prophesy” during which researchers unintentionally “produce the results they want”. Two kinds… Data Integrity Modifying Participants’ Behavior – Expectancy effects & their control • Experimenter expectancy effects – Subtle differences in treatment of participants in different • Participant Expectancy Effects conditions can change their behavior… • Single- and Double-blind designs – Inadvertently conveying response expectancies/research – Researcher and Participant Bias & their control hypotheses • Reactivity & Response Bias – Problems with participants – Difference in performance due to differential quality of • Observer Bias & Interviewer Bias – Problems w/ researchers instruction or friendliness of the interaction – Effects of attrition on initial equivalence Data Collection Bias (much like observer bias) • Ethical Considerations – Many types of observational and self-report data need to be – Informed Consent “coded” or “interpreted” before they can be analyzed – Researcher Honesty – Subjectivity and error can creep into these interpretations – usually leading to data that are biased toward expectations – Levels of Disclosure Participant Expectancy Effects A kind of “demand characteristic” during which participants modify their behavior to respond/conform to “how they should act”. Two kinds… Social Desirability – When participants intentionally or unintentionally modify their behavior to match “how they are expected to behave” – Well-known
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Goldstone Research Unit Philosophy, Politics and Economics 4-2011 Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory Hugo Mercier University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Dan Sperber Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/goldstone Part of the Epistemology Commons, and the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34 (2), 57-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/goldstone/15 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory Abstract Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.
    [Show full text]