Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 5 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illusory Correlation | Berndsen | Haslam I 240 Illusory correlation/Berndsen: (Berndsen et al. 1998(1): in a standard illusory correlation study, the statements about the two groups are reinterpreted over the course fo the experiment. I. e., rather than the desirability and undesirability of the various statements being a constant, positive behaviors performed by the larger group come to be seen more positively, and negative behaviors performed by the minority come to be seen less positively. Haslam I 241 Critically, searching for differences between groups can transform not just the perceptions of those groups but also the very information that those perceptions are based on. Berndsen et al. (2001)(2) used a „thinking aloud“ procedure: they showed that most of the naive participants who were vievng the stimuli were engaged in a process of hypothesis-testing and a search for differentiated meaning (>Meaning/McGarty). BerndsenVsGifford/BerndsenVsHamilton/McGarty: this again showed that the effects first observed by Hamilton and Gifford (>Illusory correlation/Gifford/Hamilton) are based not on a passive concern to simplify information, but on an active, effortful search after meaning. >Stereotypes/Social psychology, >Simplifcation/Psychological theories. 1. Berndsen, M., Spears, R., McGarty, C. and van der Pligt, J. (1998) ‘Dynamics of differentiation: Similarity as the precursor and product of stereotype formation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1451–63. 2. Berndsen, M., McGarty, C., van der Pligt, J. and Spears, R. (2001) ‘Meaning-seeking in the illusory correlation paradigm: The active role of participants in the categorization process’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 209-34 Craig McGarty, „Stereotype Formation. Revisiting Hamilton and Gifford’s illusory correlation studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Illusory Correlation | Fiedler | Haslam I 237 Illusory correlation/Fiedler: Klaus Fiedler (1991)(1) proposed a new account that did not afford any special importance to paired or doubly distinctive information. (FiedlerVsHamilton, FiedlerVsGifford). >Illusory correlation/Smith, >Illusory correlation/Gifford/Hamilton, >Experiment/Gifford/Hamilton. Fiedler (like Smith) explained the illusory correlation effect as a natural consequence of asking people to process skewed distributions of information. In effect, the new models were explanations of the illusory correlation effect rather than of stereotype formation. See also Berndsen et al., (1998)(2), McConnell et al., (1994)(3), Sherman et al., 2009)(4). Fiedler’s model focused on information loss. iI is likely that much of[the] information will be lost (…).Regardless of whether the information loss is a result of perceptual or memory processes (or both), the effect of the information loss is expected to take a particular form providing that this information loss is random. Critically, if the information loss is random then on average the same amount of information loss will tend to do more damage to the impression of the smaller group. In the standard illusory correlation paradigm the balance of information about both groups is very positive. It follows that if perceivers had the full set of information they would form positive impressions of both groups. If a proportion of that information is lost about both groups then there may still be enough information to retain a positive impression about the large group, but the positive impression of the small group may decay. ((s) A similar approach that focuses on randomness is found in economics: the Random Walk Theory.) Haslam I 238 VsFiedler: Problem: it is difficult to judge whether these processes are likely to yield effects that are big enough and rapid enough to explain the illusory correlation effect. It is also the case that the model should predict a rapid decay in the illusory correlation effect when the small group is large. The available evidence, however, is very limited on this point. 1. Fiedler, K. (1991) ‘The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 24–36. 2. Berndsen, M., Spears, R., McGarty, C. and van der Pligt, J. (1998) ‘Dynamics of differentiation: Similarity as the precursor and product of stereotype formation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1451–63. 3. McConnell, A.R., Sherman, S.J. and Hamilton, D.L. (1994) ‘Illusory correlation in the perception of groups: An extension of the distinctiveness-based account’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 414–29. 4. Sherman, J.W., Kruschke, J.K., Sherman, S.J., Percy, E.T., Petrocelli, J.V. and Conrey, F.R. (2009) ‘Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 305–23. Craig McGarty, „Stereotype Formation. Revisiting Hamilton and Gifford’s illusory correlation studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Illusory Correlation | Smith | Haslam I 237 Illusory correlation/Smith: Eliot Smith(1991)(1) proposed a new account that did not afford any special importance to paired or doubly distinctive information. (SmithVsHamilton, SmithVsGifford). >Illusory correlation/Fiedler, >Illusory correlation/psychological theories, >Illusory correlation/Social psychology, >Illusory correlation/Gifford/Hamilton. Smith (like Fiedler) explained the illusory correlation effect as a natural consequence of asking people to process skewed distributions of information. In effect, the new models were explanations of the illusory correlation effect rather than of stereotype formation. See also Berndsen et al., (1998)(2), McConnell et al., (1994)(3), Sherman et al., 2009)(4). Haslam I 238 Smith posited the existence of an information-processing architecture derived from work on connectionist modelling. He argued that if we assume that perceivers possess a cognitive system which, in an illusory correlation study, is forming and storing impressions of the two groups, then it is very plausible that the impression of the larger group will be more positive than that of the smaller group due simply to properties of the information set to which they are exposed. This is because, in the case of the larger group there are ten more positive pieces of information than there are negative pieces, while in the case of the smaller group this difference is just five pieces of information. If the positivity of impressions stems from the balance of positive and negative information then it is difficult to see how small groups could be seen as positively as the large group. VsSmith, Eliot: Problem: the model rests on a specific cognitive architecture that may not actually exist. It is also the case that the model is sensitive to sample size in similar ways to Fiedler’s proposal. >Illusory correlation/Fiedler. 1. Smith, E.R. (1991) ‘Illusory correlation in a simulated exemplar-based memory’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27: 107–23. 2. Berndsen, M., Spears, R., McGarty, C. and van der Pligt, J. (1998) ‘Dynamics of differentiation: Similarity as the precursor and product of stereotype formation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1451–63. 3. McConnell, A.R., Sherman, S.J. and Hamilton, D.L. (1994) ‘Illusory correlation in the perception of groups: An extension of the distinctiveness-based account’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 414–29. 4. Sherman, J.W., Kruschke, J.K., Sherman, S.J., Percy, E.T., Petrocelli, J.V. and Conrey, F.R. (2009) ‘Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 305–23. Craig McGarty, „Stereotype Formation. Revisiting Hamilton and Gifford’s illusory correlation studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications |
EconSmith I Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments London 2010 EconSmithV I Vernon L. Smith Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms Cambridge 2009 Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Illusory Correlation | Social Psychology | Haslam I 236 Illusory correlation/social psychology: part of the attraction for many social psychologists must be that it allows us to avoid explanatory principles drawn from other disciplines such as sociology, political science, and history. nevertheless there were many buyers for this idea (just as a generation earlier there had been a receptive audience for the idea that fascism was the product of a personality type that stemmed from child-rearing practices in particular cultures; after Adorno et al., 1950)(1). Stereotype formation/social psychology: in the 1970s social psychology was ready for a cognitive revolution that would cut through the complexity of alternative accounts that were framed in terms of social structure and ongoing social relations. >Stereotypes/social psychology, >Illusory correlation/Psychological theories. Illusory correlation effect: it was shown that the effect was very robust: Mullen and Johnson (1990)(2) showed that the effect was significant but of small size. Critically, this is a seemingly simple effect, which can be easily explained and understood, and which can be easily reproduced in the laboratory or classroom. In short, the study (Hamilton and Gifford 1976(3)) has all the ingredients of a classic study. >Experiment/Gifford/Hamilton. Stereotype formation/VsGifford/VsHamilton: there were good reasons to be circumspect about distinctiveness-based illusory correlation as an account of stereotype formation. Haslam I 237 Illusory correlation/KlausVsGifford/KlausVsHamilton/ FiedlerVsGifford/FiedlerVsHamilton: (Klaus Fiedler 1991(4), and Smith (1991(5): proposed two new accounts of illusory correlation: neither model afforded any special importance to paired or doubly distinctive information. >Illusory correlation/Smith, >Illusory correlation/Fiedler. 1. Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper. 2. Mullen, B. and Johnson, C. (1990) ‘Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 11–28. 3. Hamilton, D.L. and Gifford, R.K. (1976) ‘Illusory correlation in intergroup perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12: 392–407. 4. Fiedler, K. (1991) ‘The tricky nature of skewed frequency tables: An information loss account of distinctiveness-based illusory correlations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 24–36. 5. Smith, E.R. (1991) ‘Illusory correlation in a simulated exemplar-based memory’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27: 107–23. Craig McGarty, „Stereotype Formation. Revisiting Hamilton and Gifford’s illusory correlation studies“, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic studies. London: Sage Publications |
Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
| Political Elections | Hamilton | Levitsky I 48 Political Elections/Hamilton/Levitsky/Ziblatt: The American presidents (...) are not members of parliament, and they are not elected by Congress. At least theoretically they are elected by the Levitsky I 49 people, anyone can run for the presidency and if he or she finds enough support, he or she can win the office. Dilemma: On the one hand, [the authors of the American Constitution] did not want to install a monarch at the head of the state, but an elected president, one who fulfilled their idea of a republican people's government and reflected the will of the people. On the other hand, they did not fully trust the people's ability to decide on the suitability of a candidate for office. Alexander Hamilton: feared that a presidential office whose holder is elected by the people could all too easily fall to someone who exploits people's fears and ignorance to get elected and then rules as a tyrant(1). Elections [required] a built-in testing procedure(2). Solution/Hamilton: The instrument they created was the Electoral College. The second article of the American Constitution created an indirect electoral system, reflecting Hamilton's thought expressed in the Federalist Papers: "It is ... desirable that direct election be held by men best qualified to judge the qualities appropriate to the office. Moreover, these men should work under conditions that encourage objective advice and a wise combination of all the reasons and impulses that should reasonably determine their choice"(1). Electoral College: The electoral college, composed of prominent representatives from the individual states, should be responsible for electing the president. This, Hamilton further argued, "provides the moral certainty that the office of president is hardly ever held by a man who is not excellently equipped with the necessary qualities"(3). Problems/VsHamilton/Levitsky/Ziblatt: 1. The electoral college should meet only after the people have cast their votes; the electoral men played no role in the selection of candidates. 2. Secondly, nowhere in the constitution is there any mention of parties. >Political Representation, >Electoral systems. 1. Federalist Papers, No. 1, in: Alexander Hamilton/James Madison/John Ivy, Die Federalist Papers. Vollständige Ausgabe, hg. von Barbara Zahnpfennig, München 2007, p. 55ff. 2. James W. Ceaser, Presidential Selection. Theory and Development, Princeton, New Jersey, 1979, p. 64. 3. Federalist Papers, No. 68, in: Hamilton/Madison/Ivy, Die Federalist Papers, p. 405, 407. |
|
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.