In social psychology, we often see some theories that demonstrate "threats lead to some behaviors, because these behaviors can reduce threats". For example, feeling of uncertainty (e.g., "I feel confused about what kind of person I am") can lead to group identification (e.g., "I like my school more"), because group membership can make you feel less uncertainty (e.g., "I belong to a very good school and this defines who I am ). For another, death anxiety can lead to self-esteem striving because high self-esteem can mitigate death anxiety.
First, I am a big fan of the above theories, and I am definitely not questioning the credibility of them.
I just sometimes feel unclear about the boundary between the causal inference (I might mean logically inference) and circular reasoning.
It seems more straightforward to me if some theories say "A leads to B because of C", instead of some others saying "A leads to B because B can reduce the threat of A".
Anyway, this might be a silly question...
Circular Reasoning
Please let me know if this reference/site is helpful to you:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/circular.htm
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
@quing , possibly English is not your first language? You are asking a vital question, it seems. However, there appear to be several pieces that are not quite as accurate in translation as you intended. Let me try to restate your question and please respond if you agree and/or it was helpful?
1.First, the term circular reasoning does not apply to the examples given. As described in the page kindly provided by @dennis, circularity generally comes down to the problem of simple restatements posing as causal analyses. Neither of the two examples given are simple restatements.
2.Second, the positive/negative in the examples are a little confusing to read. Your final paragraph says:
> It seems more straightforward to me if some theories say "A leads to B because of C", instead of some others saying "A leads to B because B can reduce the threat of A".
Let's change those sentences to fully positive wordings. Because 'threat' indicates a negative, and the confusion seems to be with that specific term, let's transform it
From: "A leads to B because B can reduce the threat of A"
-> Goes to "Problem A leads to Solution choice B because B can reduce the problem or threat of A"
-> I abbreviate these as "A is proportional to B."
Mapping this to the two specific examples, we have:
From: "I feel confused about what kind of person I am") can lead to group identification (e.g., "I like my school more"), because group membership can make you feel less uncertainty (e.g., "I belong to a very good school and this defines who I am ).
-> Goes to: Self-confusion is ameliorated, ie made less strong, once someone chooses to idenfity strongly with a group that has been identified as positive.
From: death anxiety can lead to self-esteem striving because high self-esteem can mitigate death anxiety.
-> Goes to: The problem of death anxiety is reduced when a person strives for self-esteem.
These restatements (which are written 'simply' as causal, not correlational) are not circular and there is less word repetition so they may seem less circular as well.
3.Third, the vital issue, which seems to underly your question @quing, is the separation between cause and correlation. This is a most vital issue for all of us. The issue comes up specifically in the soft sciences, where there is very rarely any simple form of true causation.
In physical science, one can say: A ball dropping from the elevation of 5 feet to the ground is caused by the force of gravity. This statement is independent of almost all factors. Consider a very bad possible interference: strong wind pushing the ball in another direction, even up. Winds, being temporary, and gravity being permanent, lose out. Gravity wins, and at some point the ball does land on the ground. Gravity is, in this context, causal. The result is predetermined, given the context.
There are very ferw or no such causal analogues in psychology, if only because each person has free will.
Thus, in psychological research one is careful to avoid declaring causation where it is not proven - which is almost never. That leads to accurate, more complex statements of results.
Going back again to the example,
Causal, incorrect statement: "Problem A leads to Solution choice B because B can reduce the problem or threat of A"
Correlational, accurate statement: "Problem A often correlates with Solution choice B because B can reduce the problem or threat of A"
Hi Dennis and Anne, thank you for your answers, they are very helpful to clarify my thoughts. And thank Anne for your accurate translations.
Some additional thoughts on: "Problem A leads to Solution choice B because B can reduce the problem or threat of A". We may have two corollaries from this theory (if we think it as a theory). Corollary 1: Problem A tends to lead to Solution choice B. Corollary 2: B can reduce the threat of A.
In the self-uncertainty domain (in which I am most interested), for example, some theories claim that uncertainty would lead to some behaviors (e.g., group identification, cultural worldview defense, compensatory convictions etc. ) because those behaviors can make uncertainty more manageable (i.e., mitigating the feeling of uncertainty).
However, to my knowledge, most of the empirical studies focused on testing corollary 1 (e.g., uncertainty leads to some behaviors), studies testing corollary 2 (e.g., those behaviors can truly reduce uncertainty) are relatively scarce. The inadequate test of corollary 2 makes those theories less convincing to me. For example, although uncertainty is usually found to lead to increased identification, this might not be driven by the uncertainty-relief motivation. Alternatively, it can be induced by some other motivations, such as need for self-esteem, need for meaning... So it is questionable if those behaviors can reduce uncertainty per se, it may just lead to something else.
Uncertainty Reduction Behaviors
Please let me know if this reference/site is helpful to you:
Uncertainty Reduction: Definition, Theory & Examples ...study.com/.../uncertainty-reduction-definition-theory-examples.html Types of uncertainty include behavioral, based on actions, and cognitive, based on thoughts and personalities. Uncertainty leads people to gather information about other individuals. There are three types of strategies people use to do so, including passive activities, like watching, or active behaviors, such as asking others about a person of interest or checking social media accounts.
Reference/Site:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/uncertainty-reduction-definition-theory-examples.html
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning