1433
to give greater weight to negative factors than to positive factors,
e.g. being told "he sometimes exaggerates" is likely to influence us
more than "he is patient." Likewise, in marriage, as we all know, one
scathing criticism or hurtful act may overshadow days of love and
care.
Another favorite way to over-simplify is to find fault: "It was my
spouse's fault that we got divorced." "I failed the exam because it had
a lot of trick questions." Obviously, this protects our ego, as does an
"I-know-that" hindsight bias: When asked to predict behavior in
certain situations, people may not have any idea or may do no better
than chance if they guess, but when told that a certain behavior has
occurred in that situation, people tend to say, "I expected that" or "I
could have told you that."
Another common error is the post hoc fallacy --A preceded B, so
A must have caused B. Example: Young people started watching lots
of television in the 1950's and 60's, after that ACT and SAT scores
have steadily gone down; thus, TV watching must interfere with
studying. In truth, TV may or may not contribute to the declining
scores. We don't know yet (too many other changes have also
occurred).
Likewise, a correlation does not prove the cause. Examples: the
economy gets better when women's dresses get shorter. Also, the
more Baptist ministers there are in town, the more drinking is done.
Obviously, women showing more leg don't improve the economy nor
do ministers cause alcoholism. Other more complex factors cause
these strange relationships. (On the other hand, a correlation clearly
documents a relationship and if it seems reasonable, it may be a
cause and effect relationship. Thus, in the absence of any other
evidence of cause and effect, the correlation may suggest the best
explanation available at this time. But it is not proof.)
Research has shown another similar fallacy: the most visible
person or aspect of a situation, e.g. the loudest or flashiest person, is
seen, i.e. misperceived, as the moving force in the interaction (Sears,
Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988), even though he/she isn't.
The answer or hunch that first comes to our mind, perhaps merely
because of a recent or a single impressive experience, will often be the
basis for our judgment--and it's often wrong. Examples: If a friend has
recently won the lottery or picked up someone in a bar, your
expectation that these things will happen again increases. If you have
recently changed your behavior by self-reinforcement, you are now
more likely to think of using rewards. In a similar way, assuming how-
things-are-supposed-to-be or using stereotypical thinking
impairs our judgment. Examples: If you hear the marital problems of
one person in a coffee shop and the same problems from another
person in a Mental Health Center, you are likely to judge the latter
person to have more serious problems than the coffee shop patron.
