No description available.

With the growing popularity of social media platforms like Facebook, human interaction in online environments is increasing. As a result, social perceptions of the individuals "behind the screen" has become a topic that needs to be explored. The present study explores how the media platform (specifically Facebook post versus Video) affects perceptions of an individual with a controversial opinion. Potentially, the same content in a video format may increase the likability of the presenter in contrast to reading the same opinions in Facebook posts. The present study examined the role of alignment of opinion (agree vs. disagree with presenter) and content modality (Facebook video vs. Facebook text post) on participants' perception of likeability towards the online persona. In this study, three hypotheses were tested. The first hypothesis is that video posts will generally yield more likability for the presenter about a controversial issue than the same content in a Facebook post. Second, people who agree with the presenter's position of a controversial issue will find the person posting more likable. Finally, an interaction is expected such that likability will be most affected for the participants who disagree with the presenter; specifically those participants who disagree will be more likely to like the presenter in the video condition, whereas format will matter less for those who agree with the presenter's opinion. The dependent variables of the present study are the Interpersonal Adjective Scale (IAS, Trapnell & Wiggins 1990) and scores on the Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A, Jolliffe and Farrington, 2006).

No description available.

A total of 168 undergraduate students at Temple University provided a measure of their prior beliefs and measures of attitude strength on three topics and then attempted to identify and explain informal reasoning fallacies based on the same topics. Contrary to the hypothesized predictions, prior beliefs and measures of attitude strength did not have a significant effect on participants' ability to accept informal reasoning fallacies consistent with their beliefs based on that topic, although agreement with the topic demonstrated modest effects. Furthermore, this research demonstrated that participants have significant difficulty identifying and explaining informal logical fallacies. Ability to identify and explain one informal fallacy is not a significant predictor of the ability to identify and explain other fallacies. Also, ability to identify and explain one fallacy in a topic is a poor predictor of the ability to identify and explain that fallacy in another topic. This research indicates that formal fallacy syllogism scores were the best predictor of the ability to identify and explain informal logical fallacies, and that agreement with the topic and willingness to act on those beliefs demonstrated modest effects. Consistent with studies on dual-processing theory, in informal logic the individual is forced to examine the information presented in the statement and the structure of the statement and then relate it to their prior opinions and attitudes about the topic, and therefore, the acceptance of the fallacy is a matter of motivated reasoning bias or self-deception instead of an error in analytical reasoning. Informal reasoning fallacies represented an error in judgment, or a misunderstanding of the validity of an argument. Practical implications for school psychologists, limitations of this research, and directions for future research were discussed. / School Psychology

Conceptual design is a series of complex cognitive processing tasks and research seeking to further understand design cognition will benefit by considering literature from the field of psychology. This thesis presents two research projects, which sought to understand and mitigate design biases in conceptual design through the application of theories from biological and cognitive psychology. The first of these puts forward a novel model of design creativity based on connectionist theory and a neurological phenomenon known as long-term potentiation. This model is applied to provide new insights into design fixation and develop interventions to assist designers overcome fixation. The second project seeks to establish that cognitive heuristics and biases predictably influence design cognition. Two studies are discussed that examined the role of confirmation bias in design. The first establishes that confirmation bias is present during concept generation; the second demonstrates that decision matrices can mitigate confirmation bias in concept evaluation.

Conceptual design is a series of complex cognitive processing tasks and research seeking to further understand design cognition will benefit by considering literature from the field of psychology. This thesis presents two research projects, which sought to understand and mitigate design biases in conceptual design through the application of theories from biological and cognitive psychology. The first of these puts forward a novel model of design creativity based on connectionist theory and a neurological phenomenon known as long-term potentiation. This model is applied to provide new insights into design fixation and develop interventions to assist designers overcome fixation. The second project seeks to establish that cognitive heuristics and biases predictably influence design cognition. Two studies are discussed that examined the role of confirmation bias in design. The first establishes that confirmation bias is present during concept generation; the second demonstrates that decision matrices can mitigate confirmation bias in concept evaluation.

Cognitive Science is an interdisciplinary field that ties together the curricula of liberal arts and technical fields of study. However, it is de-emphasized in technical undergraduate studies such as Engineering. Cognitive Science is essentially the study of the human mind and how humans process information. It is the study of human responses, thinking, and perception. Human behavior and a person’s reaction are undetermined, but it can be better understood. Although human behavior and interaction is a routine part of life, engineers are taught to decipher code and not how to decipher a human’s behavior. Cognitive Science affects all aspects in the work environment. Organizational practices can be improved by understanding common biases and motivational theories in people. Having a cognitive awareness of typical human behavior will help to promote improved communication and positive reactions from people in the workplace. Human behavior is inevitable in any field but more crucial in technical fields especially when there is lack of communication or ambiguous guidelines and definitions. In technical fields, miscommunication or ambiguity can be a matter of life or death. In many situations, miscommunication can drive ambiguity. Although some people are happy with flexible guidelines, others seek to have well defined expectations. How do people react in situations surrounding miscommunication or ambiguity? In both situations, some people create opportunities and others become a hindrance. Processes and procedures can be put in place to alleviate ambiguous situations, but human performance and psychological factors still play a role as well. Human error can result from psychological factors, but the environment can be improved to limit those factors. As with any situation, mishaps are still prone to happen. Although human error is preventable in most cases, it’s never completely unavoidable. Human error continues to be a deep-rooted cause that can lead to negative outcomes. As stated by Alexander Pope, “to err is human…” (Moncur). This paper will explore underlying human behavior in daily activities. By understanding common biases and motivational theories driving human behavior, one can address negative behavior in a technical field in order to create opportunities. / text

The present study aims to reconcile conflicting evidence from previous research on the role of objectivity in journalists’ and citizens’ information behaviors. Drawing on news quality frameworks and confirmation bias research, the article proposes a model of “biased objectivity” that was tested by a quasi-experiment with 430 journalists and 432 citizens in Germany. Results show that both perceived objectivity value (news quality perspective) and attitude consistency of a message (confirmation bias perspective) enhanced the informational value of a message, with objectivity value mediating the effect of attitude consistency on informational value perceptions (“biased objectivity” perspective). Journalistic professionalism did not moderate this relationship.

Psychological aspects of evidence evaluation: Abstract The diploma thesis focuses on the topic of judging and decision-making within the process of evidence evaluation. Its main goal is to identify and describe cognitive illusions which can have a negative impact on the process of evidence evaluation. The mutual position of psychology and law in also considered within introductory chapters. The decision making of the judges is initially described by theoretical models. Three cognitive illusions that are essential for evidence evaluation are described in the following chapter. It is anchoring heuristic, hindsight bias and confirmation bias. Eventually risks, which these cognitive illusions represent for evidence evaluation, are described and forms of countermeasures are discussed. One chapter of the thesis is devoted to the description of ego depletion, which could pose another limit for the process of evidence evaluation. Ego depletion describes decline of self-control in cases which demand conscious effort. The judges are probably in a risk of ego depletion. This phenomenon can lead to higher vulnerability towards cognitive illusions and stronger tendency to maintain status quo. Possible countermeasures are described and discussed on one hand against anchoring, hindsight and confirmation bias and on the...

Den här studien undersöker hur diskussioner på ekokammare ser ut i sociala medier. Mer specifikt undersöks kommentarsfälten i två olika länkar från den sociala länkaggregatorn Reddit och underforumet /r/Politics. Undersökningen görs i syfte att se hur diskussioner tar form på Reddit för att ge en klarare bild av ekokammare som fenomen på internet. Studiens teoretiska grund ligger i teorierna om selektiv exponering och partisk assimilering, samt i en teoretisering av hur grupper formas på de sociala medierna Twitter och Reddit. Studien använder sig av både en kvantitativ innehållsanalys och en kvalitativ textanalys, vilka främst grundar sig i argumentationsanalysen. Innehållsanalysen används först för att jämföra /r/Politics användares ställningstagande till de länkar som de kommenterar på och sedan för att möjliggöra en korrelationsanalys av arguments styrka och dess användargivna poäng på Reddit. Textanalysen görs med hjälp av begrepp från argumentationsanalysen och används för att sätta in studiens material i fem olika teman. Det mest framträdande temat får namnet Kommentarer av papegojor och beskriver kommentarer som konstrueras likadant som tidigare kommentarer utan försök till att föra något nytt till diskussionen. Överlag visar studiens resultat att responsen ser likadan ut för båda länkarna och att en stor majoritet av kommentarerna är på samma sida i argumentet. Resultatet visar också att argumentens styrka är oberoende av om en kommentar får en positiv respons eller inte. / This study explores how discussions in echo chambers take form on social media. More specifically, the study explores the comment section of two different links on the social news-aggregator website Reddit and the sub-forum /r/Politics. The purpose of the aforementioned exploration is to give a clearer picture of echo chambers as a phenomena on the Internet. The study’s theoretical background is based on selective exposure and biased assimilation theory, as well as a theorization of how groups form on Twitter and Reddit. The study uses a quantitative content analysis and a qualitative text analysis, which are both based on argumentation theory. The content analysis is first used to compare the viewpoint of /r/Politics users with the subject of the links they comment on, and then to make a correlation analysis of the strength of arguments and the arguments’ user-given points on Reddit. Last a qualitative text analysis is done using concepts from argumentation theory, which allows for the observation of five different themes. The most prominent of these themes was given the name Comments by parrots and describes comments that are constructed in a similar fashion to older comments, without an attempt to bring something new to the discussion.  Overall, the study’s result shows that the response to the two links is similar, and that both have an overwhelming majority of comments supporting one side. The result also shows that a strong argument does not necessarily mean that the comment will get a positive response.