Textbook Notes (280,000)
CA (160,000)
McGill (5,000)
PSYC (1,000)
Chapter 7

PSYC 333 Chapter Notes - Chapter 7: Oskar Boettger, Parliament Of The United Kingdom, Fundamental Attribution Error


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 333
Professor
Jennifer Bartz
Chapter
7

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Complex Answers to a Simple Question: Is Integrative Complexity “Politically Correct”?
From The Social Psychologists: Research Adventures ed. Gary G. Brannigan, Matthew R. Merrens
By: Philip E. Tetlock
Scientists are supposed to be dedicated to the truth—even if they find it distasteful
This is why political psychology is di!cult
Not the subject matter, but the character of its practitioners
Need openness to evidence that may overrun important assumptions
Hard to say you’re wrong; worse with emotionally/politically charged issues
Tabula rasa model of political psychologist is wrong
Have political preconceptions/prejudices
Tend to be liberal
Like egalitarian social policies, detest racism, sceptical of use of force in IR, suspicious of justifications for war
Is it possible to do rigorous scientific research on topics that touch one’s deepest moral and political feelings?
Integrative Complexity
Tetlock special interest in social and political reasoning
Wanted to study it, but needed to get beyond rating scales to natural language—but how?
Discovered Peter Suedfeld’s content analysis, in particular the integrative complexity coding system
-Ignore what people are saying and focus on how they say it
- Some think there is only one way to think about a topic
- Others more open minded and see room for reasonable people to disagree
EXAMPLE: ABORTION
Lowest level of complexity scale (score of 1) responses show no tolerance for other ways of looking at the world
(low evaluative di!erentiation) for both pro-choice and pro-life arguments:
Abortion is about freedom of choice and feminism.
Abortion is infanticide.
Score 2 and 3 in complexity scale shows greater tolerance for alternative views:
I am pro-choice but find abortion peronsally and morally repugnant; I recognize not everyone agrees and I don’t
have a right to impose my personal philosophy on other people
Score levels of 4 and 5 have active attempts to explain how disagreements might have arisen, or specification
for how to reconcile conflicting perspectives
Some people see abortion as murder; some as fundamental civil liberty—it’s all about how they look at the fetus;
when should we grant a fetus the rights we grant to human beings? Compromise is the point of viability outside
the womb.
The highest score levels in integrative complexity coding (6 – 7) shows emergence to integrate conflicting values,
but also emergence of flexible, complex combinatorial principles
Some people see abortion as murder; some as a fundamental civil liberty. There are lots of issues influencing which
position you take including bio-medical, ethical, and legal-constitutional. People can disagree on any or all of
these issues—it’s not an all or nothing position.
Training people to assess integrative complexity usually requires a weeklong workshop
- Recognize linguistic indicators of di"erentiation
oBut, however, although
- Linguistic indicators of integration
oMutual, joint, balancing, trade-o"s
Must also be objective: low-complexity doesn’t mean bad guys and high-complexity is not the good guys.
Most coders have been liberals, but Tetlock needed to ensure no political bias in codes that people assigned
- One coder refused to be “duped” by high-complexity Republican speech; claimed she would not “reward” him
with a high score
-Two problems:
oThought she was seeing into his state of mind
oThought of high-complexity as better than low-complexity
Early work on integrative complexity illustrates law of the hammer—give a child a hammer and everything looks like a
nail
Didn’t contemplate “normative questions” about how people should think, but rather how they do think, and needed to
collect data.
- No limit to range of applications—diplomatic communications, revolutionary leaders, household arguments
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version