Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T10:00:53.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post hoc rationalism in science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2011

Eric Luis Uhlmann
Eric Luis Uhlmann
Affiliation:
HEC Paris–School of Management, Management and Human Resources Department, 78351 Jouy-en-Josas, France. eric.luis.uhlmann@gmail.comwww.socialjudgments.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In advocating Bayesian Enlightenment as a solution to Bayesian Fundamentalism, Jones & Love (J&L) rule out a broader critique of rationalist approaches to cognition. However, Bayesian Fundamentalism is merely one example of the more general phenomenon of Rationalist Fundamentalism: the tendency to characterize human judgments as rational and optimal in a post hoc manner, after the empirical data are already known.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2011 , pp. 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armor, D. A. (1999) The illusion of objectivity: Bias in the belief in freedom from bias. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L. & Ross, L. (2011) Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science 22:731–32.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L., Aronson, J. & Steele, C. M. (2000) When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26:1151–64.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1994) Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization. In: Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, ed. Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S., pp. 85–116. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, D. & Cohen, G. L. (1992) Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:341–55.Google Scholar
Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A. & Sherman, D. A. (1995) A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C. & Huh, E. (1992) Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62:328–39.Google Scholar
Hamilton, V. L. (1980) Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer: Alternative models of the attribution process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:767–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J. I. & Funder, D. C. (2004) Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27:313–27.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1987) Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S. & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125:255–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:2098–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A. & Darley, J. M. (2004) Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:817–31.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Gilovich, T. & Ross, L. (2004) Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review 111:781–99.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. & Ross, L. (2002) The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28:369–81.Google Scholar
Pyszczynski, T. & Greenberg, J. (1987) Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 20, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 297–340. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ross, L. & Ward, A. (1996) Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In: Values and knowledge, ed. Reed, E. S. & Turiel, E., pp. 103–35. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sherman, D. K. & Cohen, G. L. (2002) Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11:119–23.Google Scholar
Sherman, D. K. & Cohen, G. L. (2006) The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 38, ed. Zanna, M. P., pp. 183–242. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steele, C. M. (1988) The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 21, ed. Berkowitz, L., pp. 261–302. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2002) Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review 109:451–71.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O., Elson, B., Green, M. & Lerner, J (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:853–70.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Visser, P., Singh, R., Polifroni, M., Elson, B., Mazzocco, P. & Rescober, P. (2007) People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social control motives on attributions of responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:195–209.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L. & Cohen, G. L. (2005) Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science 16:474–80.Google Scholar