The Rosenthal effect is another name for the Pygmalion effect. It describes how a teacher, leader, or coach can improve the performance of those they are leading by consistently having, and expressing, high expectations of them.
It is named after one of the researchers (Lenore Jacobson and Robert Rosenthal) who first described the effect. In short, it shows how low expectations of others can lead them to perform badly, while high expectations can lead to higher performance.
Continue reading: What is the Rosenthal effect?
The observer-expectancy effect is a cognitive bias referring to the tendency of researchers inadvertently influencing their study participants. It can contain elements of the Pygmalion effect as well as the halo or horn effects. It is also related to the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies, which can have either a positive or negative impact.
This is one of the reasons that experimental design is so important in the crafting of a research proposal, to reduce the risk that this effect will color the eventual results.
Continue reading: What is the observer-expectancy effect?
Common forms of cognitive bias include:
Continue reading: What are common types of cognitive bias?
The horn effect is the halo effect in reverse. While the halo effect makes us more likely to make positive judgments about someone or something based on a single positive characteristic, the horn effect makes us more likely to make negative judgments based on a negative characteristic.
For instance, the horn effect might lead you to unconsciously decide against asking a new colleague for help because you formed a negative first impression of them based on the way they were dressed when you were introduced.
Continue reading: What is the horn effect?
The halo effect is important in marketing because it means that an individual product characteristic can influence how consumers perceive the product’s other characteristics.
A product may be perceived as being high quality if the packaging looks expensive, for instance—even if this isn’t the case. Conversely, the halo effect can work in the other direction (the horn effect) and negatively impact sales if the packaging of a high-quality product looks too cheap.
Continue reading: How does the halo effect apply to marketing?
The red herring fallacy hinders constructive dialogue and prevents meaningful progress in addressing the central issues of a discussion.
The intentional use of red herrings and other fallacies can mislead and manipulate the audience by drawing attention to unrelated topics or emotions, potentially swaying opinions without addressing the substance of the original argument.
Continue reading: Why is the red herring fallacy a problem?
Identifying an appeal to authority fallacy begins with paying attention to any quoted experts and asking the following questions:
- Does the individual or group cited have expertise on the specific subject at hand?
- Is there a consensus among the experts, or is there significant disagreement? If there is an alternative view held by some experts, can your opponent justify choosing one position over the other?
- Can any evidence of bias be found that might cast doubt on the expert’s credibility?
Continue reading: How do I identify an appeal to authority fallacy?
Appeals to authority can be convincing because the people being cited aren’t present to explain the evidence. It can be difficult to critically evaluate whether the quoted experts have genuine expertise on the subject and whether their opinions are well-founded and unbiased.
Continue reading: Why is the appeal to authority fallacy convincing?
Fallacious appeals to authority make the mistake of relying excessively on the endorsements of experts. These authorities are typically credentialed or famous people, but, in many cases, they aren’t qualified to make definitive judgments about the issue at hand.
Non-fallacious appeals to authority cite legitimate experts on the topic of debate and include other supporting evidence or reasoning.
Continue reading: When is the appeal to authority a fallacy?
The complex question fallacy and begging the question fallacy are similar in that they are both based on assumptions. However, there is a difference between them:
- A complex question fallacy occurs when someone asks a question that presupposes the answer to another question that has not been established or accepted by the other person. For example, asking someone “Have you stopped cheating on tests?”, unless it has previously been established that the person is indeed cheating on tests, is a fallacy.
- Begging the question fallacy occurs when we assume the very thing as a premise that we’re trying to prove in our conclusion. In other words, the conclusion is used to support the premises, and the premises prove the validity of the conclusion. For example: “God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.”
In other words, begging the question is about drawing a conclusion based on an assumption, while a complex question involves asking a question that presupposes the answer to a prior question.
Continue reading: What is the difference between a complex question fallacy and begging the question fallacy?
