1 / 13

Strong inference

PSY 6190/7190 Langston. Strong inference. How should we plan studies?. I ’ m taking a lot of this early material from Greenwald (2012; doi:10.1177/1745691611434210). Keep in mind, my interpretation of it might differ from his. How should we plan studies?. Isn ’ t confirmation bias dangerous?

ilar
Download Presentation

Strong inference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PSY 6190/7190 Langston Strong inference

  2. How should we plan studies? • I’m taking a lot of this early material from Greenwald (2012; doi:10.1177/1745691611434210). Keep in mind, my interpretation of it might differ from his.

  3. How should we plan studies? • Isn’t confirmation bias dangerous? • Yes, but… • The dogmatic attitude of sticking to a theory as long as possible is of considerable significance. Without it we could never find out what is in a theory—we should give the theory up before we had a real opportunity of finding out its strength; and in consequence no theory would ever be able to play its role of bringing order into the world, of preparing us for future events, of drawing our attention to events we should otherwise never observe. (Popper, 1963, p. 312)

  4. How should we plan studies? • Isn’t confirmation bias dangerous? • Yes, but… • By ensuring that the paradigm will not be too easily surrendered[,] resistance [i.e., confirmation bias] guarantees that scientists will not be lightly distracted and that the anomalies that lead to paradigm change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core. (Kuhn, 1970, p. 65)

  5. How should we plan studies? • On the other hand… • Important as the intellectual affections are as stimuli and as rewards, they are nevertheless dangerous factors in research. . . . The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more and more dear to him. . . . So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is apt to be a rapid passage to the unreserved adoption of the theory. . . . The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that assume a refractory attitude. . . . There springs up also unwittingly a pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and a pressing of the facts to make them fit the theory. . . . The search for facts, the observation of phenomena, and their interpretation are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. (Chamberlin, 1897, pp. 358–359)

  6. How should we plan studies? • The fix: • [By bringing] into view every rational explanation of the phenomenon . . . [t]he investigator thus becomes the parent of a family of hypotheses; . . . the right use of the method requires the impartial adoption of all alike into the working family. The investigator [can then proceed] with a certain natural and enforced erectness of mental attitude to the inquiry. (p. 360)

  7. How should we plan studies? • Can we really treat multiple competing hypotheses (besides our own) as equals? Greenwald says not.

  8. How should we plan studies? • Strong inference is an attempt. • Platt (1964): • Devise multiple hypotheses. • Design an experiment to test between these alternatives. Ideally, the outcome of one experiment will be consistent with only one of your alternatives and inconsistent with all the rest. • Carry out your experiment.

  9. Strong inference example • Most & Wang (2011; doi:10.1177/0956797610397665): • What causes emotion-induced blindness (an emotional picture in a stream of pictures makes it harder to detect a target picture)? • Two hypotheses: • Central mechanism (no matter where the emotional picture occurs, it will cause interference). • Competition at a given spatial location (the emotional picture has to be in the same region as the target).

  10. Strong inference example • Most & Wang (2011): • Two hypotheses: • Central mechanism. • Competition at a given spatial location. • Study: • Two streams of pictures, look for a target on one. • Slip an emotional picture into one stream.

  11. Strong inference example • Most & Wang (2011): • Two hypotheses: • Central mechanism. • Interference if the emotional picture is in the same stream as the target or a different stream. • Competition at a given spatial location. • Only interference in the same stream.

  12. Strong inference example • Most & Wang (2011): Most & Wang (2011, p. 302)

  13. Strong inference example • Most & Wang (2011): • We can tease apart the two hypotheses.

More Related