Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cognitive Biases, Fallacies, and Public Relations
List of cognitive biases
Cognitive biases are tendencies to think in certain ways. Cognitive biases can lead to
systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment, and are often studied
in psychology and behavioral economics.
Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research, there are often
controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[1] Some are effects of
information-processing rules (i.e. mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to
produce decisions or judgments. Such effects are called cognitive biases.[2][3]Biases in judgment
or decision-making can also result from motivation, such as when beliefs are distorted
by wishful thinking. Some biases have a variety of cognitive ("cold") or motivational ("hot")
explanations. Both effects can be present at the same time.[4][5]
There are also controversies as to whether some of these biases count as truly irrational or
whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others,
people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions
about the person. This kind of confirmation bias has been argued to be an example of social
skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[6]
The research on these biases overwhelmingly involves human subjects. However, some of the
findings have appeared in non-human animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has
also been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[7]
Decision-making, belief, and behavioral biases
Many of these biases affect belief formation, business and economic decisions, and human
behavior in general. They arise as a replicable result to a specific condition: when confronted
with a specific situation, the deviation from what is normally expected can be characterized by:
Name Description
Ambiguity effect
The tendency to avoid options for which missing information
makes the probability seem "unknown."[8]
Anchoring orfocalism The tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or
piece of information when making decisions.[9][10]
Attentional bias
The tendency of our perception to be affected by our recurring
thoughts. [11]
Availability heuristic
The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with
greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by
how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally
charged they may be.[12]
Availability cascade
A self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains
more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in
public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will
become true").[13]
Backfire effect
When people react to disconfirming evidence by strengthening
their beliefs.[14]
Bandwagon effect
The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other
people do (or believe) the same. Related
to groupthink and herd behavior.[15]
Base rate fallacy or base rate
neglect
The tendency to ignore base rate information (generic, general
information) and focus on specific information (information
only pertaining to a certain case).[16]
Belief bias
An effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength
of an argument is biased by the believability of the
conclusion.[17]
Bias blind spot
The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people,
or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in
oneself.[18]
Cheerleader effect The tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group
than in isolation.[19]
Choice-supportive bias
The tendency to remember one's choices as better than they
actually were.[20]
Clustering illusion
The tendency to over-expect small runs, streaks, or clusters in
large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom
patterns).[10]
Confirmation bias
The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember
information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[21]
Congruence bias
The tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct
testing, instead of testing possible alternative hypotheses.[10]
Conjunction fallacy
The tendency to assume that specific conditions are more
probable than general ones.[22]
Conservatism orregressive
bias
A certain state of mind wherein high values and high
likelihoods are overestimated while low values and low
likelihoods are underestimated.[23][24][25][unreliable source?]
Conservatism (Bayesian)
The tendency to insufficiently revise one's belief when
presented with new evidence.[23][26][27]
Contrast effect
The enhancement or reduction of a certain perception's stimuli
when compared with a recently observed, contrasting
object.[28]
Curse of knowledge
When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think
about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed
people.[29]
Decoy effect
Preferences for either option A or B changes in favor of option
B when option C is presented, which is similar to option B but
in no way better.
Denomination effect
The tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in
small amounts (e.g. coins) rather than large amounts (e.g.
bills).[30]
Distinction bias
The tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when
evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them
separately.[31]
Duration neglect
The neglect of the duration of an episode in determining its
value
Empathy gap
The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of
feelings, in either oneself or others.
Endowment effect
The fact that people often demand much more to give up an
object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.[32]
Essentialism Categorizing people and things according to their essential
nature, in spite of variations.[dubious – discuss][33]
Exaggerated expectation
Based on the estimates, real-world evidence turns out to be
less extreme than our expectations (conditionally inverse of
the conservatism bias).[unreliable source?][23][34]
Experimenter'sor expectation
bias
The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish
data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an
experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the
corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with
those expectations.[35]
Functional fixedness
Limits a person to using an object only in the way it is
traditionally used.
Focusing effect
The tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of
an event.[36]
Forer effect orBarnum effect
The observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings
to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored
specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough
to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a
partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some
beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling,
graphology, and some types of personality tests.
Framing effect
Drawing different conclusions from the same information,
depending on how or by whom that information is presented.
Frequency illusion
The illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has
recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear
with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (see
also recency illusion).[37]
Gambler's fallacy
The tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by
past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from
an erroneous conceptualization of the law of large numbers.
For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times
consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth
flip is much greater than heads."
Hard-easy effect
Based on a specific level of task difficulty, the confidence in
judgments is too conservative and not extreme
enough[23][38][39][40]
Hindsight bias
Sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the tendency
to see past events as being predictable[41] at the time those
events happened.
Hostile media effect
The tendency to see a media report as being biased, owing to
one's own strong partisan views.
Hot-hand fallacy
The "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand
phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the fallacious belief that a
person who has experienced success has a greater chance of
further success in additional attempts.
Hyperbolic discounting
The tendency for people to have a stronger preference for
more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the
tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs
are.[42] Also known as current moment bias, present-bias, and
related to Dynamic inconsistency.
Identifiable victim effect
The tendency to respond more strongly to a single identified
person at risk than to a large group of people at risk.[43]
IKEA effect
The tendency for people to place a disproportionately high
value on objects that they partially assembled themselves,
such as furniture from IKEA, regardless of the quality of the
end result.
Illusion of control
The tendency to overestimate one's degree of influence over
other external events.[44]
Illusion of validity
Belief that furtherly acquired information generates additional
relevant data for predictions, even when it evidently does
not.[45]
Illusory correlation
Inaccurately perceiving a relationship between two unrelated
events.[46][47]
Impact bias
The tendency to overestimate the length or the intensity of the
impact of future feeling states.[48]
Information bias
The tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect
action.[49]
Insensitivity to sample size The tendency to under-expect variation in small samples
Irrational escalation
The phenomenon where people justify increased investment
in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment,
despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was
probably wrong.
Just-world hypothesis
The tendency for people to want to believe that the world is
fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise
inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s).
Less-is-better effect
The tendency to prefer a smaller set to a larger set judged
separately, but not jointly
Loss aversion
"the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility
associated with acquiring it".[50] (see also Sunk cost
effects and endowment effect).
Ludic fallacy The misuse of games to model real-life situations.
Mere exposure effect
The tendency to express undue liking for things merely
because of familiarity with them.[51]
Money illusion
The tendency to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of
money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.[52]
Moral credential effect
The tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase
subsequent prejudice.
Negativity effect
The tendency of people, when evaluating the causes of the
behaviors of a person they dislike, to attribute their positive
behaviors to the environment and their negative behaviors to
the person's inherent nature or of young people to be more
negative information in the descriptions of others
Negativity bias
Psychological phenomenon by which humans have a
greater recall of unpleasant memories compared with positive
memories.[53]
Neglect of probability
The tendency to completely disregard probability when making
a decision under uncertainty.[54]
Normalcy bias
The refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster which has never
happened before.
Observation selection bias
The effect of suddenly noticing things that were not noticed
previously – and as a result wrongly assuming that the
frequency has increased.
Observer-expectancy effect
When a researcher expects a given result and therefore
unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets
data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
Omission bias
The tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less
moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).[55]
Optimism bias
The tendency to be over-optimistic, overestimating favorable
and pleasing outcomes (see also wishful thinking, valence
effect, positive outcome bias).[56][57]
Ostrich effect Ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Outcome bias
The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome
instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it
was made.
Overconfidence effect
Excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For
example, for certain types of questions, answers that people
rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the
time.[23][58][59][60]
Pareidolia
A vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) is
perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or
faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing non-
existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Pessimism bias
The tendency for some people, especially those suffering
from depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative
things happening to them.
Planning fallacy The tendency to underestimate task-completion times.[48]
Post-purchase rationalization
The tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument
that a purchase was a good value.
Pro-innovation bias
The tendency to have an excessive optimism towards an
invention or innovation's usefulness throughout society, while
often failing to identify its limitations and weaknesses.
Pseudocertainty effect
The tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected
outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid
negative outcomes.[61]
Reactance
The urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do
out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your
freedom of choice (see also Reverse psychology).
Reactive devaluation
Devaluing proposals only because they are purportedly
originated with an adversary.
Recency illusion
The illusion that a word or language usage is a recent
innovation when it is in fact long-established (see also
frequency illusion).
Restraint bias
The tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in
the face of temptation.
Rhyme as reason effect
Rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful. A famous
example being used in the O.J Simpson trial with the
defense's use of the phrase "If the gloves don't fit, then you
must acquit."
Risk compensation / Peltzman
effect
The tendency to take greater risks when perceived safety
increases.
Selective perception The tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflex
The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a
paradigm.[27]
Social comparison bias
The tendency, when making hiring decisions, to favour
potential candidates who don't compete with one's own
particular strengths.[62]
Social desirability bias
The tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics
or behaviours in one self and under-report socially undesirable
characteristics or behaviours.[63]
Status quo bias
The tendency to like things to stay relatively the same (see
also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system
justification).[64][65]
Stereotyping
Expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics
without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effect
The tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than
the probabilities of the parts.[66]
Subjective validation
Perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands
it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between
coincidences.
Survivorship bias
Concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some
process and inadvertently overlooking those that didn't
because of their lack of visibility.
Time-saving bias
Underestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost)
when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively low speed
and overestimations of the time that could be saved (or lost)
when increasing (or decreasing) from a relatively high speed.
Unit bias
The tendency to want to finish a given unit of a task or an
item. Strong effects on the consumption of food in
particular.[67]
Well travelled road effect
Underestimation of the duration taken to traverse oft-traveled
routes and overestimation of the duration taken to traverse
less familiar routes.
Zero-risk bias
Preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater
reduction in a larger risk.
Zero-sum heuristic
Intuitively judging a situation to be zero-sum (i.e., that gains
and losses are correlated). Derives from the zero-sum game
in game theory, where wins and losses sum to zero.[68][69] The
frequency with which this bias occurs may be related to
the social dominance orientation personality factor.
Social biases[edit]
Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.
Name Description
Actor-observer
bias
The tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviors to
overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the
influence of their situation (see also Fundamental attribution error), and for
explanations of one's own behaviors to do the opposite (that is, to
overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the
influence of our own personality).
Defensive
attribution
hypothesis
Attributing more blame to a harm-doer as the outcome becomes more
severe or as personal or situational similarity to the victim increases.
Dunning–Kruger
effect
An effect in which incompetent people fail to realise they are incompetent
because they lack the skill to distinguish between competence and
incompetence. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as
competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent
understanding.[70]
Egocentric bias
Occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results
of a joint action than an outside observer would credit them.
Extrinsic
incentives bias
An exception to the fundamental attribution error, when people view others
as having (situational) extrinsic motivations and (dispositional) intrinsic
motivations for oneself
False
consensus
effect
The tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree
with them.[71]
Forer effect(aka
Barnum effect)
The tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their
personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact
vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For
example, horoscopes.
Fundamental
attribution error
The tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations
for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and
power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-
observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity
effect).[72]
Group
attribution error
The biased belief that the characteristics of an individual group member are
reflective of the group as a whole or the tendency to assume that group
decision outcomes reflect the preferences of group members, even when
information is available that clearly suggests otherwise.
Halo effect
The tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one
personality area to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical
attractiveness stereotype).[73]
Illusion of
asymmetric
insight
People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers'
knowledge of them.[74]
Illusion of
external agency
When people view self-generated preferences as instead being caused by
insightful, effective and benevolent agents
Illusion of
transparency
People overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate
their ability to know others.
Illusory
superiority
Overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable
qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as "Lake Wobegon effect,"
"better-than-average effect," or "superiority bias").[75]
Ingroup bias
The tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they
perceive to be members of their own groups.
Just-world
phenomenon
The tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people
"get what they deserve."
Moral luck
The tendency for people to ascribe greater or lesser moral standing based
on the outcome of an event
Naive cynicism Expecting more egocentric bias in others than in oneself
Outgroup
homogeneity
bias
Individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied
than members of other groups.[76]
Projection bias
The tendency to unconsciously assume that others (or one's future selves)
share one's current emotional states, thoughts and values.[77]
Self-serving
bias
The tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may
also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous
information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving
bias).[78]
Shared
information bias
Known as the tendency for group members to spend more time and energy
discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared
information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some
members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).[79]
System
justification
The tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social,
economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives
disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-
interest. (See also status quo bias.)
Trait ascription
bias
The tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of
personality, behavior, and mood while viewing others as much more
predictable.
Ultimate
attribution error
Similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to
make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals
within the group.
Worse-than-
average effect
A tendency to believe ourselves to be worse than others at tasks which are
difficult[80]
Memory errors and biases[edit]
Main article: List of memory biases
In psychology and cognitive science, a memory bias is a cognitive bias that either enhances or
impairs the recall of a memory (either the chances that the memory will be recalled at all, or the
amount of time it takes for it to be recalled, or both), or that alters the content of a reported
memory. There are many types of memory bias, including:
Name Description
'Bizarreness effect' Bizarre material is better remembered than common material.
Choice-supportive bias
In a self-justifying manner retroactively ascribing one's choices
to be more informed than they were when they were made.
Change bias
After an investment of effort in producing change,
remembering one's past performance as more difficult than it
actually was[81][unreliable source?]
Childhood amnesia The retention of few memories from before the age of four.
Conservatism orRegressive
Bias
Tendency to remember high values and high
likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies lower than they actually
were and low ones higher than they actually were. Based on
the evidence, memories are not extreme enough[24][25]
Consistency bias Incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as
resembling present attitudes and behaviour.[82]
Context effect
That cognition and memory are dependent on context, such
that out-of-context memories are more difficult to retrieve than
in-context memories (e.g., recall time and accuracy for a work-
related memory will be lower at home, and vice versa)suf
Cross-race effect
The tendency for people of one race to have difficulty
identifying members of a race other than their own.
Cryptomnesia
A form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for
imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it
being a memory.[81]
Egocentric bias
Recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering
one's exam grades as being better than they were, or
remembering a caught fish as bigger than it really was.
Fading affect bias
A bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant
memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with
positive events.[83]
False memory
A form of misattribution where imagination is mistaken for a
memory.
Generation effect(Self- That self-generated information is remembered best. For
generation effect) instance, people are better able to recall memories of
statements that they have generated than similar statements
generated by others.
Google effect
The tendency to forget information that can be found readily
online by using Internet search engines .
Hindsight bias
The inclination to see past events as being more predictable
than they actually were; also called the "I-knew-it-all-along"
effect.
Humor effect
That humorous items are more easily remembered than non-
humorous ones, which might be explained by the
distinctiveness of humor, the increased cognitive processing
time to understand the humor, or the emotional arousal caused
by the humor.[citation needed]
Illusion of truth effect
That people are more likely to identify as true statements those
they have previously heard (even if they cannot consciously
remember having heard them), regardless of the actual validity
of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to
believe a familiar statement than an unfamiliar one.
Illusory correlation
Inaccurately remembering a relationship between two
events.[23][47]
Lag effect See spacing effect.
Leveling and Sharpening
Memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a
recollection over time, often concurrent with sharpening or
selective recollection of certain details that take on
exaggerated significance in relation to the details or aspects of
the experience lost through leveling. Both biases may be
reinforced over time, and by repeated recollection or re-telling
of a memory.[84]
Levels-of-processing effect
That different methods of encoding information into memory
have different levels of effectiveness.[85]
List-length effect
A smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list,
but as the length of the list increases, the absolute number of
items remembered increases as well.[86][further explanation needed]
Misinformation effect
Memory becoming less accurate because of interference
from post-event information.[87]
Modality effect
That memory recall is higher for the last items of a list when
the list items were received via speech than when they were
received through writing.
Mood-congruent memory
bias
The improved recall of information congruent with one's
current mood.
Next-in-line effect
That a person in a group has diminished recall for the words of
others who spoke immediately before himself, if they take
turns speaking.[88]
Part-list cueing effect
That being shown some items from a list and later retrieve one
item causes it to become harder to retrieve the other items[89]
Peak-end rule
That people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience
but the average of how it was at its peak (e.g. pleasant or
unpleasant) and how it ended.
Persistence The unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic
event.[citation needed]
Picture superiority effect
The notion that concepts that are learned by viewing pictures
are more easily and frequently recalled than are concepts that
are learned by viewing their written word form
counterparts.[90][91][92][93][94][95]
Positivity effect
That older adults favor positive over negative information in
their memories.
Primacy effect,Recency
effect &Serial position effect
That items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to
recall, followed by the items at the beginning of a sequence;
items in the middle are the least likely to be remembered.[96]
Processing difficulty effect That information which is read longer time and more thought
about (more diffculty processed) is easier remembered.[97]
Reminiscence bump
The recalling of more personal events from adolescence and
early adulthood than personal events from other lifetime
periods[98]
Rosy retrospection
The remembering of the past as having been better than it
really was.
Self-relevance effect That memories relating to the self are better recalled than
similar information relating to others.
Source confusion
Confusing episodic memories with other information, creating
distorted memories.[99]
Spacing effect
That information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated
over a long span of time rather than a short one.
Stereotypical bias
Memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g. racial or gender),
e.g. "black-sounding" names being misremembered as names
of criminals.[81][unreliable source?]
Suffix effect
Diminish of the recency effect because a sound item is
appended to the list that the subject is not required to
recall.[100][101]
Suggestibility
A form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a
questioner are mistaken for memory.
Telescoping effect
The tendency to displace recent events backward in time and
remote events forward in time, so that recent events appear
more remote, and remote events, more recent.
Testing effect
The fact that you easier remember information you have read
by rewriting it instead of rereading it.[102]
Tip of the tonguephenomenon
When a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related
information, but is frustratingly unable to recall the whole item.
This is thought an instance of "blocking" where multiple similar
memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.[81]
Verbatim effect
That the "gist" of what someone has said is better
remembered than the verbatim wording.[103] This is because
memories are representations and not carbon copy clones.
Von Restorff effect
That an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered
than other items[104]
Zeigarnik effect
That uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better
than completed ones.
Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases[edit]
Bounded rationality – limits on optimization and rationality
Prospect theory
Mental accounting
Adaptive bias – basing decisions on limited information and biasing them based on the
costs of being wrong.
Attribute substitution – making a complex, difficult judgment by unconsciously substituting
it by an easier judgment[105]
Attribution theory
Salience
Naïve realism
Cognitive dissonance, and related:
Impression management
Self-perception theory
Heuristics in judgment and decision making, including:
Availability heuristic – estimating what is more likely by what is more available in
memory, which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples[46]
Representativeness heuristic – judging probabilities on the basis of resemblance[46]
Affect heuristic – basing a decision on an emotional reaction rather than a calculation
of risks and benefits[106]
Some theories of emotion such as:
Two-factor theory of emotion
Somatic markers hypothesis
Introspection illusion
Misinterpretations or misuse of statistics; innumeracy.
A 2012 Psychological Bulletin article suggested that at least eight seemingly unrelated biases
can be produced by the same information-theoretic generative mechanism that assumes noisy
information processing during storage and retrieval of information in human memory.[23]
List of fallacies A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more
generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.
Formal fallacies
A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.[1] All formal fallacies
are specific types of non sequiturs.
Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would
probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]
Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then
the conclusion itself is false.[4]
Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities,
without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]
Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple
conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]
Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical
designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[7]
Propositional fallacies[edit]
A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a
compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the
relevant logical connectives which occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if
and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by
the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield
true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:
Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false
because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.[8]
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true
because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8]
Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false
because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.[8]
Quantification fallacies[edit]
A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in
contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:
Existential fallacy – an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.[9]
Formal syllogistic fallacies[edit]
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a
categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.[9]
Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its
premises are negative.[9]
Fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.[10]
Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is
not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9]
Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed
in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.[9]
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – when a categorical
syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. [9]
Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not
distributed.[11]
Informal fallacies[edit]
Main article: Informal fallacy
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws
and which usually require examination of the argument's content.[12]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming
that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[13]
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot
imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[14][15]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed
extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the
absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the
mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two
positions is always correct.[16]
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your
opponent.
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the
argument as a premise.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must
prove it is false.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or
she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed
to be its root cause.
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the
heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[17]
Correlative-based fallacies
Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that
correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[18]
Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is
made impossible.[19]
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over
which meaning is intended at a particular time).[20]
Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is
equivocated.[21]
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon
aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[22]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or
phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[23]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true
of the whole.[24]
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some
of its parts.[25]
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two
alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are
more.[26]
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded
question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something
that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used
rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's
agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[27]) – it is assumed that there is one,
simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only
jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or
fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of
words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[28]
False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only
one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the
likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief
that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.[29]
Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed
events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently
analyzing the decision.[30] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical
analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads
to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function
or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first
defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a
little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of
thinking (as different but the same).[31]
Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the
scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to
question.[32]
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are
selectively emotionally sensitive.
Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete
comparison.
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one
with a false impression of the whole comparison.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself
be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[33]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be
encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining
the probability of events taking place.[34]
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the
world really is.
Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt
to make oneself look good to win an argument.
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation
of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic
fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response
to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[35] in
violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred
to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a
stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an
instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[36] (anti-naturalistic fallacy[37]) – inferring impossibility to infer any
instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy mentioned above. For
instance, is does imply ought for any proposition , although
the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic
fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because
they are not perfect.
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the
burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or
questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here
the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
Petitio principii – see begging the question.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect,
coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened;
therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped
our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[38]
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to
an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.
(See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability
of some false match being found.
Proving too much - using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used more
generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective
when analyzing a behavioral event.
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand
by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[39]
Referential fallacy[40] – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of
words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring no real
object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for
natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or
hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In
other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing,
but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its
occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their
position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by
verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an
exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice
versa.[41]
Faulty generalizations[edit]
Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance,
in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly
buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.
Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.[42]
No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is
ruled out on shaky grounds.[43]
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual
cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion
of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[44]
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.[45]
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of
the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident)
– basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[46]
Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It
happens when a conclusion is made of premises which lightly supports it.
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an
exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which
eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial
statement might have led one to assume.[47]
Pathetic fallacy – when an inanimate object is declared to have characteristics of animate
objects.[48]
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom,
used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other
topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
Red herring fallacies[edit]
A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in
order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on
fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the
subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws
attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is
presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[49]
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the
opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an
argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[50]
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the
majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely
because many people believe it to be so.[51]
Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed
pretense of equality.
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property
they are the same.
Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true
because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[52][53]
Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the
accomplishments of the proposer.
Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by
a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an
attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[54]
Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions,
rather than the use of valid reasoning. [55]
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by
increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due
to the use of flattery to gather support.[56]
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to
sway opponents.[57]
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a
way that makes it appear ridiculous.
Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made
through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made
according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or
reason.[58]
Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its
proposer.
Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be
superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[59]
Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer
is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)[60]
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it
has long been held to be true.[61]
Appeal to nature – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is
'natural' or 'unnatural'.[citation needed]
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the
arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[62] (Sometimes taken together
with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of
contrary evidence.
Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it
to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume
that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a
false.[32]
Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly
held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.[citation needed]
Fallacy of relative privation – dismissing an argument due to the existence of more
important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's
origin rather than its current meaning or context.[63]
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's
judgment.
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy,[64] naturalistic fallacy[65]) – claims about what ought to
be on the basis of statements about what is.
Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to
Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled.
(See also – Godwin's law)
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[66]
Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.[67]
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument
states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its
proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[68]
Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed,
another wrong will cancel it out.[69]
Conditional or questionable fallacies[edit]
Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-
obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of
others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that
states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that
the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.[70]
Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the
other.[71]
Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of
the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes
also taken to mean the appeal to nature)[citation needed] or God's will.
Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first
step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant
impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this
fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x
does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.)[72] This is also
related to the Reductio ad absurdum.
List of memory biases
In psychology and cognitive science, a memory bias is a cognitive bias that either enhances or impairs
the recall of a memory (either the chances that the memory will be recalled at all, or the amount of time it
takes for it to be recalled, or both), or that alters the content of a reported memory. There are many
different types of memory biases, including:
Choice-supportive bias: remembering chosen options as having been better than rejected options
(Mather, Shafir & Johnson, 2000)
Change bias: after an investment of effort in producing change, remembering one's past
performance as more difficult than it actually was.[1]
Childhood amnesia: the retention of few memories from before the age of four.
Conservatism or Regressive Bias: tendency to remember high values and high
likelihoods/probabilities/frequencies lower than they actually were and low ones higher than they
actually were. Based on the evidence, memories are not extreme enough.[2][3]
Consistency bias: incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling
present attitudes and behaviour.
Context effect: that cognition and memory are dependent on context, such that out-of-context
memories are more difficult to retrieve than in-context memories (e.g., recall time and accuracy for a
work-related memory will be lower at home, and vice versa).
Cross-race effect: the tendency for people of one race to have difficulty identifying members of a
race other than their own.
Cryptomnesia: a form of misattribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination, because there
is no subjective experience of it being a memory.[1]
Egocentric bias: recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g., remembering one's exam grades
as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as bigger than it really was.
Fading affect bias: a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more
quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.[4]
Gender differences in eyewitness memory: the tendency for a witness to remember more details
about someone of the same gender.
Generation effect (Self-generation effect): that self-generated information is remembered best. For
instance, people are better able to recall memories of statements that they have generated than
similar statements generated by others.
Google effect: the tendency to forget information that can be easily found online.
Hindsight bias: the inclination to see past events as being predictable; also called the "I-knew-it-all-
along" effect.
Humor effect: that humorous items are more easily remembered than non-humorous ones, which
might be explained by the distinctiveness of humor, the increased cognitive processing time to
understand the humor, or the emotional arousal caused by the humor.
Illusion-of-truth effect: that people are more likely to identify as true statements those they have
previously heard (even if they cannot consciously remember having heard them), regardless of the
actual validity of the statement. In other words, a person is more likely to believe a familiar statement
than an unfamiliar one.
Illusory correlation: inaccurately seeing a relationship between two events related by coincidence.[5]
Lag effect: see spacing effect.
Leveling and Sharpening: memory distortions introduced by the loss of details in a recollection over
time, often concurrent with sharpening or selective recollection of certain details that take on
exaggerated significance in relation to the details or aspects of the experience lost through leveling.
Both biases may be reinforced over time, and by repeated recollection or re-telling of a memory.[6]
Levels-of-processing effect: that different methods of encoding information into memory have
different levels of effectiveness (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
List-length effect: a smaller percentage of items are remembered in a longer list, but as the length
of the list increases, the absolute number of items remembered increases as well.
Misinformation effect: that misinformation affects people's reports of their own memory.
Misattribution of memory: when information is retained in memory but the source of the memory is
forgotten. One of Schacter's (1999) Seven Sins of Memory, Misattribution was divided into Source
Confusion, Cryptomnesia and False Recall/False Recognition.[1]
Memory inhibition: that being shown some items from a list makes it harder to retrieve the other
items (e.g., Slamecka, 1968).
Modality effect: that memory recall is higher for the last items of a list when the list items were
received via speech than when they were received via writing.
Mood congruent memory bias: the improved recall of information congruent with one's current
mood.
Next-in-line effect: that a person in a group has diminished recall for the words of others who spoke
immediately before or after this person.
Peak-end effect: that people seem to perceive not the sum of an experience but the average of how
it was at its peak (e.g. pleasant or unpleasant) and how it ended.
Persistence: the unwanted recurrence of memories of a traumatic event.
Picture superiority effect: that concepts are much more likely to be remembered experientially if
they are presented in picture form than if they are presented in word form.[7]
Placement bias: tendency to remember ourselves to be better than others at tasks at which we rate
ourselves above average (also Illusory superiority or Better-than-average effect)[8]
and tendency
to remember ourselves to be worse than others at tasks at which we rate ourselves below average
(also Worse-than-average effect).[9]
Positivity effect: that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.
Primacy effect, Recency effect & Serial position effect:[10]
that items near the end of a list are the
easiest to recall, followed by the items at the beginning of a list; items in the middle are the least likely
to be remembered.[10]
Processing difficulty effect.
Reminiscence bump: the recalling of more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood
than personal events from other lifetime periods (Rubin, Wetzler & Nebes, 1986; Rubin, Rahhal &
Poon, 1998).
Rosy retrospection: the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.
Self-reference effect: the phenomena that memories encoded with relation to the self are better
recalled than similar information encoded otherwise.
Self-serving bias: perceiving oneself responsible for desirable outcomes but not responsible for
undesirable ones.
Source Confusion: misattributing the source of a memory, e.g. misremembering that one saw an
event personally when actually it was seen on television.
Spacing effect: that information is better recalled if exposure to it is repeated over a longer span of
time.
Stereotypical bias: memory distorted towards stereotypes (e.g. racial or gender), e.g. "black-
sounding" names being misremembered as names of criminals.[1]
Suffix effect: the weakening of the recency effect in the case that an item is appended to the list that
the subject is not required to recall (Morton, Crowder & Prussin, 1971).
Suggestibility: a form of misattribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for
memory.
Subadditivity effect: the tendency to estimate that the likelihood of a remembered event is less than
the sum of its (more than two) mutually exclusive components.[11]
Telescoping effect: the tendency to displace recent events backward in time and remote events
forward in time, so that recent events appear more remote, and remote events, more recent.
Testing effect: that frequent testing of material that has been committed to memory improves
memory recall.
Tip of the tongue: when a subject is able to recall parts of an item, or related information, but is
frustratingly unable to recall the whole item. This is thought to be an instance of "blocking" where
multiple similar memories are being recalled and interfere with each other.[1]
Verbatim effect: that the "gist" of what someone has said is better remembered than the verbatim
wording (Poppenk, Walia, Joanisse, Danckert, & Köhler, 2006).
Von Restorff effect: that an item that sticks out is more likely to be remembered than other items
(von Restorff, 1933).
Zeigarnik effect: that uncompleted or interrupted tasks are remembered better than completed ones.
Outline of public relations
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to public relations:
Public relations – actions of an organization or individual in promoting goodwill between itself
and the organisation's publics (PR rarely has the resources to focus on the "general public" and
so segments populations into "target publics" being those specific groups of like-minded people
with an ability to "help" or hurt" the organisation from sustaining itself within its operating
environment), the community (e.g. neighbours), media, government (three-tiers), competitors,
staff and employees, suppliers and contractors, investors, and so on.
Nature of public relations[edit]
Public relations can be described as all of the following:
Academic discipline – branch of knowledge that is taught and researched at the college or
university level. Disciplines are defined (in part), and recognized by the academic journals in
which research is published, and the learned societies and academic departments or
faculties to which their practitioners belong.
Communication – activity of conveying information.
Marketing – process which creates, communicates, and delivers value to the customer, and
maintains the relationship with customers.
Essence of public relations[edit]
To create and sustain "shared meaning" or "common understanding" - NB this may be and
usually is different to "shared beliefs"
Propaganda: the general propagation of information for a specific purpose
Psychological warfare:
Psyops
Public relations: techniques used to influence the publics' perception of an organization
Publicity: PR techniques used to promote a specific product or brand
Spin (public relations)
Spin: both the objective of a PR campaign and the act of obtaining that objective
Airborne leaflet propaganda is a form of psychological warfare in
which leaflets (flyers) are scattered in the air. Military forces have used aircraft to drop leaflets to
attempt to alter the behavior of combatants and civilians in enemy-controlled territory,
sometimes in conjunction with air strikes. Humanitarian air missions, in cooperation with leaflet
propaganda, can turn civilians against their leadershipwhile preparing them for the arrival of
enemy troops.
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message (e.g. political,
advertising, or public relations) to give the appearance of it coming from a
disinterested,grassroots participant. Astroturfing is intended to give the statements the credibility
of an independent entity by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The
term astroturfing is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like
natural grass.
On the Internet, astroturfers use software to mask their identity. Sometimes one individual
operates over many personas to give the impression of widespread support for their client's
agenda.[1][2] Some studies suggest astroturfing can alter public viewpoints and create enough
doubt to inhibit action.
The term atrocity story (also referred to as atrocity tale) as defined by
the American sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson D. Shupe refers to the symbolic
presentation of action or events (real or imaginary) in such a context that they are made
flagrantly to violate the (presumably) shared premises upon which a given set of social
relationships should be conducted. The recounting of such tales is intended as a means of
reaffirming normative boundaries. By sharing the reporter's disapproval or horror, an audience
reasserts normative prescription and clearly locates the violator beyond the limits of public
morality. The term was coined in 1979 by Bromley, Shupe, and Joseph Ventimiglia. [1]
Bromley and others define an atrocity as an event that is perceived as a flagrant violation of a
fundamental value. It contains the following three elements
1. moral outrage or indignation
2. authorization of punitive measures
3. mobilization of control efforts against the apparent perpetrators.
The veracity of the story is considered irrelevant.[2]
The bandwagon effect is a well documented form of groupthink in behavioral
science and has many applications.[which?] The general rule is that conduct or beliefs spread
among people, as fads and trends clearly do, with "the probability of any individual adopting it
increasing with the proportion who have already done so".[1] As more people come to believe in
something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.
The tendency to follow the actions or beliefs of others can occur because individuals directly
prefer to conform, or because individuals derive information from others. Both explanations
have been used for evidence of conformity in psychological experiments. For example, social
pressure has been used to explain Asch's conformity experiments,[2] and information has been
used to explain Sherif's autokinetic experiment.[3]
The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was
coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so
"colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously." Hitler asserted the technique was used by Jews to unfairly blame
Germany's loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff.
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a
source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to
vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy.[1] Black propaganda contrasts with grey
propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real
source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, albeit slanted, distorted and
omissive. Black propaganda is covert in nature in that its aims, identity, significance, and
sources are hidden.
The major characteristic of black propaganda is that the people are not aware that someone is
trying to influence them, and do not feel that they are being pushed in a certain
direction.[2] Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source.
This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations.[3]Sometimes the
source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and
deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.[4] Black
propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the
creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their
intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.[4]
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons.
First, by using black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their
target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised
and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use
of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary to obfuscate a government's involvement
in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies.[5]
A buzzword is a word or phrase used to impress, or one that is fashionable.
Buzzwords often originate in jargon or are neologisms.[1]
The term was first used in 1946 as student slang.[2]
Card stacking is a propaganda technique that seeks to manipulate audience
perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another.[1] Such emphasis may
be achieved through media bias or the use of one-sided testimonials, or by simply censoring the
voices of critics. The technique is commonly used in persuasive speeches by political
candidates to discredit their opponents and to make themselves seem more worthy.[2]
The term originates from the magician's gimmick of "stacking the deck", which involves
presenting a deck of cards that appears to have been randomly shuffled but which is, in fact,
'stacked' in a specific order. The magician knows the order and is able to control the outcome of
the trick. In poker, cards can be stacked so that certain hands are dealt to certain players.[3]
The phenomenon can be applied to any subject and has wide applications. Whenever a broad
spectrum of information exists, appearances can be rigged by highlighting some facts and
ignoring others. Card stacking can be a tool of advocacy groups or of those groups with specific
agendas.[4] For example, an enlistment poster might focus upon an impressive picture, with
words such as "travel" and "adventure", while placing the words, "enlist for two to four years" at
the bottom in a smaller and less noticeable point size
In communication, a code word is an element of a standardized code or protocol.
Each code word is assembled in accordance with the specific rules of the code and assigned a
unique meaning. Code words are typically used for reasons of reliability, clarity, brevity, or
secrecy.
Communist propaganda is propaganda aimed to advance
the ideology of communism, communist worldview and interests of the communist movement.
A Bolshevik theoretician, Nikolai Bukharin, in his The ABC of Communism wrote:[1]
The State propaganda of communism becomes in the long run a means for the eradication of
the last traces of bourgeois propaganda dating from the old régime; and it is a powerful
instrument for the creation of a new ideology, of new modes of thought, of a new outlook on the
world.
A corporate identity is the overall image of a corporation or firm or business in
the minds of diverse publics, such as customers and investors and employees. It is a primary
task of the corporate communications department to maintain and build this identity to accord
with and facilitate the attainment of business objectives. It is usually visibly manifested by way
of branding and the use of trademarks.[1]
Corporate identity comes into being when there is a common ownership of an organizational
philosophy that is manifest in a distinct corporate culture — the corporate personality. At its
most profound, the public feel that they have ownership of the philosophy. Corporate identity
helps organizations to answer questions like ―who are we?‖ and ―where are we going?‖
Corporate identity also allows consumers to denote their sense of belonging with particular
human aggregates or groups.[2]
In general, this amounts to a corporate title, logo (logotype and/or logogram) and supporting
devices commonly assembled within a set of guidelines. These guidelines govern how the
identity is applied and confirm approved colour palettes, typefaces, page layouts and other
such.
A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly
through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities
have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders,[1] and
may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not for profit business. Early
incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or
passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new
corporations through registration. In addition to legal personality, registered corporations tend to
have limited liability, be owned byshareholders[2][3] who can transfer their shares to others, and
controlled by a board of directors who are normally elected or appointed by the shareholders.
In American English the word corporation is widely used to describe large business
corporations.[4] In British English and in the commonwealth countries, the term company is
more widely used to describe the same sort of entity while the word corporationencompasses
all incorporated entities. In American English, the word company can include entities such
as partnerships that would not be referred to as companies in British English as they are not
a separate legal entity.
Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal
persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural people do.
Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[5][6] and they can
themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[7] Corporations can be "dissolved" either
by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of
shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate failure, when creditors force the
liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[8] but it most often results in a
restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses,
such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not considered living entities in the
way that humans are.[9]
A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda,
or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, god-like public image, often
through unquestioning flattery and praise. Sociologist Max Weberdeveloped a tripartite
classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as
"charismatic authority". A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is
established by mass media and propaganda.
Demonization is the reinterpretation of polytheistic deities as evil, lying demons by
other religions, generally monotheistic and henotheistic ones. The term has since been expanded to refer
to any characterization of individuals, groups, or political bodies as evil.
Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread
deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth.
Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally
false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation
is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting
information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth
and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it
as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such
control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered
useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and
discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that
appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more
specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is only ever used as a pejorative,
because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle
messages are frequently themselves distasteful, for example by empathising with racist or
revolutionary attitudes. It is an analogy to dog whistles, which are built in such a way that their
high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs, but is inaudible to humans.
The term can be distinguished from "code words" used by hospital staff or other specialist
workers, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm, and the messaging referred to as
the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being
incomprehensible.
Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses
the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing"
for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing[1]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the
truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual
inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases,
doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with
political language.[2][3]
Enterperience: fusing entertainment and experience together
A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that
may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.[1] Some euphemisms are intended to
amuse; while others use bland, inoffensive, and often misleading terms for things the user
wishes to dissimulate or downplay. Euphemisms are used for dissimulation, to refer totaboo
topics (such as disability, sex, excretion, and death) in a polite way, and to
mask profanity.[2] The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism.
Euphemisms may be used to avoid words considered rude, while still conveying their meaning;
words may be replaced by similar-sounding words, gentler words, or placeholders. Some
euphemisms have become accepted in certain societies for uncomfortable information; for
example, in the United States, a doctor is likely to say "the patient passed away" rather than
"the patient died". They can be used to downplay or conceal unpalatable facts, such as
"collateral damage" for "civilian casualties" in a military context, or "redacted" for "censored".
A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement
presented as a fact, but without supporting evidence. The word can also be used to describe a
particularly insignificant or novel fact, in the absence of much relevant context.[1] The word is
defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is
repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".[2]
Factoid was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer
described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or
newspaper",[3] and created the word by combining the word fact and the ending -oid to mean
"similar but not the same". The Washington Times described Mailer's new word as referring to
"something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".[4]
Factoids may give rise to, or arise from, common misconceptions and urban legends.
In monetary policy of the United States, the term Fedspeak (also known
as Greenspeak) is what Alan Blinder called "a turgid dialect of English" used by Federal
Reserve Board chairmen in making intentionally wordy, vague, and ambiguous
statements.[2][3][4] The strategy, which was used most prominently by Alan Greenspan, was used
to prevent financial markets from overreacting to the chairman's remarks.[3] The coinage is an
intentional parallel to Newspeak of Nineteen Eighty-Four, a novel by George Orwell.
The deliberately confusing and carefully rehearsed cryptic language described as an
"indecipherable, Delphic dialect" is meant to "give people a sense that there's no way they could
understand economics and finance" and thus allow the Federal Reserve and government to
manage the economy with less interference from the general public.[5][6][7]
Although Ben Bernanke has stated that Fedspeak now means clear and extensive
communication of the fed's action, the original interpretation in which Fedspeak meant
"explaining more, is understanding better" is still prominently used.[8] It should also be noted that
Bernanke's speech has also been described as fedspeak.[9]
It has been noted that the nuanced nature of fedspeak poses interpretation problems to
automated trading algorithms.[10]
A front organization is any entity set up by and controlled by another
organization, such as intelligence agencies, organized crime groups, banned organizations,
religious or political groups, advocacy groups, or corporations. Front organizations can act for
the parent group without the actions being attributed to the parent group.
Front organizations that appear to be independent voluntary associations or charitable
organizations are called front groups. In the business world, front organizations such asfront
companies or shell corporations are used to shield the parent company from legal
liability. In international relations, a puppet state is a state which acts as a front (or surrogate) for
another state.
A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally
appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries
conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general
approval and acclaim. Their appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, and desire
for peace, freedom, glory, and honor. They ask for approval without examination of the reason.
They are typically used by politicians and propagandists.
Homophobic propaganda (or anti-gay propaganda)
is propaganda based on negative and homophobia towards homosexual and sometimes
other non-heterosexual people. Such propaganda supports anti-gay prejudices and stereotypes,
and promotes social stigmatization and/or discrimination. The term homophobic
propaganda was used by the historian Stefan Micheler in his work Homophobic Propaganda
and the Denunciation of Same-Sex-Desiring Men under National Socialism,[1] as well as other
works treating the topic.[2]
In some countries, some forms of homophobic propaganda are considered hate speech and are
prohibited by law. In Russia, such propaganda can also be treated as illegal, because laws in
Russia explicitly prohibit hate speech against any social group (not explicitly mentioning sexual
orientation), and LGBT can be considered as distinct social group.[3]
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or
a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact
that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they
have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of
education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked
to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with
negativeconnotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.
The term Information Warfare (IW) is primarily an American concept
involving the use and management of information technology in pursuit of a competitive
advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical
information, assurance(s)that one's own information is valid, spreading
of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[1] the enemy and the public,
undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection
opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.
The American focus tends to favor technology, and hence tends to extend into the realms of
Electronic Warfare, Cyber Warfare, Information Assurance and Computer Network Operations /
Attack / Defence.
Most of the rest of the world use the much broader term of "Information Operations" which,
although making use of technology, focuses on the more human-related aspects of information
use, including (amongst many others) social network analysis, decision analysis and the human
aspects of Command and Control.
In the United States, junk science is any scientific data, research, or analysis
considered to be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal
contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a
determination. It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been
untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives.
The concept was first invoked in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation.[citation needed] More
recently, invoking the concept has been a tactic to criticize research on the
harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in
response to such criticism. In these contexts, junk science is counterposed to the "sound
science" or "solid science" that favors one's own point of view.[1] This dichotomy has been
particularly promoted by Steven Milloy and theAdvancement of Sound Science Center. This is
somewhat different from issues around pseudoscience and controversial science.
The lesser of two evils principle (or lesser evil principle) is the idea
in politics and political science that of two bad choices, one is not as bad as the other and
should therefore be chosen over the one that is the greater threat.[citation needed]
Originally, "lesser evil" was a Cold War-era pragmatic foreign policy principle used by the United
States and, to a lesser extent, several other countries. The principle dealt with the United States
of America's attitude regarding how dictators of third-world nations ought to be handled, and
was closely related to the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of Jeane Kirkpatrick. By contrast, the lesser of
two evils principle is today most commonly used in reference to electoral politics, particularly
in Western nations, and perhaps in the United States more than anywhere else. When popular
opinion in the United States is confronted with what is often seen as two main candidates—
normally Democratic and Republican in the modern era—that are substantially
similar ideologically, politically, and/or in their economic programmes, a voter is often advised to
choose the "lesser of two evils" to avoid having the supposedly "greater evil" get into office and
wreak havoc on society.
In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive
language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to
emotion orstereotypes.[1][2][3] Such wording is also known as high-inference
language or language persuasive techniques.
Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional implications and involve strongly positive or
negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax reliefrefers literally
to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive
word relief implies that all tax is an unreasonable burden to begin with. Examples of loaded
language are "You want to go to the mall, don't you?" and "Do you really want to associate with
those people?".
The appeal to emotion is often seen as being in contrast to an appeal to logic and reason.
However, emotion and reason are not necessarily always in conflict, nor is it true that an
emotion cannot be a reason for an action. Murray and Kujundzic distinguish "prima
facie reasons" from "considered reasons" when discussing this. A prima facie reason for, say,
not eating mushrooms is that one does not like mushrooms. This is an emotive reason.
However, one still may have a considered reason for not eating mushrooms: one might
consume enough of the relevant minerals and vitamins that one could obtain from eating
mushrooms from other sources. An emotion, elicited via emotive language, may form aprima
facie reason for action, but further work is required before one can obtain
a considered reason.[3]
Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the
human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, withoutsuch
further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally
advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one
of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid
language whose only function is to sway the emotions".[1][3]
Marketing is the process of communicating the value of a product or service
to customers, for selling that product or service.
From a societal point of view, marketing is the link between a society’s material requirements
and its economic patterns of response. Marketing satisfies these needs and wants through
exchange processes and building long term relationships. Marketing can be looked at as an
organizational function and a set of processes for creating, delivering and communicating value
to customers, and managing customer relationships in ways that also benefit the organization
and its shareholders. Marketing is the science of choosing target markets through market
analysis and market segmentation, as well as understanding consumer buying behavior and
providing superior customer value.
There are five competing concepts under which organizations can choose to operate their
business: the production concept, the product concept, the selling concept, the marketing
concept, and the holistic marketing concept.[1] The four components of holistic marketing are
relationship marketing, internal marketing, integrated marketing, and socially responsive
marketing. The set of engagements necessary for successful marketing management includes
capturing marketing insights, connecting with customers, building strong brands, shaping the
market offerings, delivering and communicating value, creating long-term growth, and
developing marketing strategies and plans.[2]
Media bias is the bias or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within
the mass media in the selection of events and stories that are reported and how they are
covered. The term "media bias" implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the
standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The
direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed.
Practical limitations to media neutrality include the inability of journalists to report all available
stories and facts, and the requirement that selected facts be linked into a coherent
narrative.[1] Government influence, including overt and covert censorship, biases the media in
some countries, for example North Korea and Burma.[2] Market forces that result in a biased
presentation include the ownership of the news source,concentration of media ownership, the
selection of staff, the preferences of an intended audience, and pressure from advertisers.
There are a number of national and international watchdog groups that report on bias in the
media.
Media manipulation is a series of related techniques in which partisans
create an image or argument that favours their particular interests. Such tactics may include the
use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and often involve the suppression of
information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of
people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere.
In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul writes that public opinion can
only express itself through channels which are provided by the mass media of communication-
without which there could be no propaganda.[1] It is used within public
relations, propaganda, marketing, etc. While the objective for each context is quite different, the
broad techniques are often similar. As illustrated below, many of the more modern mass
media manipulation methods are types ofdistraction, on the assumption that the public has a
limited attention span.
A misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a
falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the
gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this
constitutes a statistical fallacy.
The false statistics trap can be quite damaging to the quest for knowledge. For example, in
medical science, correcting a falsehood may take decades and cost lives.
Misuses can be easy to fall into. Professional scientists, even mathematicians and professional
statisticians, can be fooled by even some simple methods, even if they are careful to check
everything. Scientists have been known to fool themselves with statistics due to lack of
knowledge of probability theory and lack of standardization of their tests.
Managing the news refers to acts that are intended to influence the
presentation of information within the news media. The expressionmanaging the news is often
used in a negative sense. For example, people or organizations that wish to lessen the publicity
concerning bad news may choose to release the information late on a Friday, giving journalists
less time to pursue the story. Staying "on message" is a technique intended to limit questions
and attention to a narrow scope favorable to the subject.
An example cited by the Communication, Cultural and Media Studies infobase regards a
February 1996 Scott Report on arms sales to Iraq. In the United Kingdom, the report was given
early to certain officials.
News propaganda is a type of propaganda covertly packaged as
credible news, but without sufficient transparency concerning the news item's source and the
motivation behind its release. Transparency of the source is one parameter critical to distinguish
between news propaganda and traditional news press releases and video news releases.
As with any propaganda, news propaganda may be spread for widely different reasons
including governance, political or ideologicalmotivations, partisan agendas, religious or ethnic re
asons, and commercial or business motivations; their purposes are not always clear. News
propaganda also can be motivated by national security reasons, especially in times of war or
domestic upheaval.
Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written
by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to
limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-
expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is
classified as "thoughtcrime."
Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the
book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a
much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with
undesirable concepts are eradicated. The goal is for everyone to be speaking this language by
the year 2050 (the story is set in the year 1984—hence the title). In the mean
time, Oldspeak (current English) is still spoken among the Proles — the working-class citizens
of Oceania.
Orwell was inspired to invent Newspeak by the constructed language Basic English, which he
promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the
English Language".[1] In this paper he deplores the bad English of his day, citing dying
metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words, which he claimed to
encourage unclear thought and reasoning. Towards the end of the essay, Orwell states: ―I said
earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would
argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social
conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or
constructions."
Newspeak's contracted forms, such as Ingsoc and Minitrue, are inspired by the Russian syllabic
abbreviations used for concepts relating to the government and society of the USSR, such
as politburo, Comintern, kolkhoz (collective farm) and Komsomol (Young Communists' League),
many of which found their way into the speech of Communists in other countries.
"Plain Folks" is a form of propaganda and is also a fallacy.[1]
A Plain Folks argument is one in which the speaker presents him or herself as an Average Joe,
a common person who can understand and empathize with a listener's concerns. The most
important part of this appeal is the speaker's portrayal of themselves as someone who has had
a similar experience, to the listener, and knows why they may be skeptical or cautious about
accepting the speaker's point of view. In this way, the speaker gives the audience a sense of
trust and comfort, believing that the speaker and the audience share common goals and that
they thus should agree with the speaker. Also using an "ordinary background," such as a park
or a building, depending on the item you are advertising, will usually give it a higher possibility of
more customers.
A propaganda film is a film that involves some form of propaganda. Propaganda
films may be packaged in numerous ways, but are most often documentary-style productions or
fictional screenplays, that are produced to convince the viewer on a specific political point or
influence the opinions or behavior of the viewer, often by providing subjective content that may
be deliberately misleading.[1]
Propaganda can be defined as the ability "to produce and spread fertile messages that, once
sown, will germinate in large human cultures.‖[2] However, in the 20th century, a ―new‖
propaganda emerged, which revolved around political organizations and their need to
communicate messages that would ―sway relevant groups of people in order to accommodate
their agendas‖.[3] First developed by theLumiere brothers in 1896, film provided a unique means
of accessing large audiences at once. Film was the first universal mass medium in that it could
simultaneously influence viewers as individuals and members of a crowd, which led to it quickly
becoming a tool for governments and non-state organizations to project a desired ideological
message.[4] As Nancy Snow stated in her book, Information War: American Propaganda, Free
Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11, propaganda "begins where critical thinking ends." [5]
A public service announcement (PSA) or public service ad, are
messages in the public interest disseminated by the media without charge, with the objective of
raising awareness, changing public attitudes and behavior towards a social issue. In the UK,
they are generally called Public Information films.
Revolutionary propaganda means dissemination
of revolutionary ideas.
While the term propaganda bears a mostly negative connotation in modern English language,
this did not exist in the early 20th century, when the word "propaganda" was first coined.
"Revolutionary propaganda" is supposed to carry a positive connotation, something along the
lines of "dissemination of ideas that will help people win their freedom".
Self-propaganda is a form of propaganda and indoctrination performed by
an individual or a group on oneself.
Social marketing seeks to develop and integrate marketing concepts with other
approaches to influence behaviors that benefit individuals and communities for the greater
social good. It seeks to integrate research, best practice, theory, audience and partnership
insight, to inform the delivery of competition sensitive and segmented social change programs
that are effective, efficient, equitable and sustainable.[1]
Although "social marketing" is sometimes seen only as using standard commercial marketing
practices to achieve non-commercial goals, this is an oversimplification. The primary aim of
social marketing is "social good", while in "commercial marketing" the aim is primarily "financial".
This does not mean that commercial marketers can not contribute to achievement of social
good.
Increasingly, social marketing is being described as having "two parents"—a "social parent",
including social science and social policyapproaches, and a "marketing parent", including
commercial and public sector marketing approaches.[2]
In the United States, junk science is any scientific data, research, or analysis considered to
be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and
scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. It usually conveys
a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial,
or otherwise unscientific motives.
The concept was first invoked in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation.[citation needed]
More recently,
invoking the concept has been a tactic to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public
health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. In these contexts,
junk science is counterposed to the "sound science" or "solid science" that favors one's own point of
view.[1]
This dichotomy has been particularly promoted by Steven Milloy and theAdvancement of Sound
Science Center. This is somewhat different from issues around pseudoscience and controversial science.
In law, the rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other
evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. By analogy the same term is used
inpolitics and public affairs to refer to the informal process by which statements, designed to
refute or negate specific arguments put forward by opponents, are deployed in the media. [1]
In law, special rules apply to rebuttal. Rebuttal evidence or rebuttal witnesses must be confined
solely to the subject matter of the evidence rebutted. New evidence on other subjects may not
be brought in rebuttal. However, rebuttal is one of the few vehicles whereby a party may
introduce surprise evidence or witnesses. The basic process is as follows: Both sides of a
controversy are obliged to declare in advance of trial what witnesses they plan to call, and what
each witness is expected to testify to. When either aplaintiff (or prosecutor) or defendant brings
direct evidence or testimony which was not anticipated, the other side may be granted a specific
opportunity to rebut it. In rebuttal, the rebutting party may generally bring witnesses and
evidence which were never declared before, so long as they serve to rebut the prior evidence.
Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or
speakers that attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific
situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a
central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who
considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any
given case the available means of persuasion."[3] Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for
understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as
Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of
rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in
classical Rome: invention, arrangement,style, memory, and delivery. Along
with grammar and logic (or dialectic—see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three
ancient arts of discourse.
From Ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling
the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments.[4] The
word is derived from the Greek ῥητορικός(rhētorikós), "oratorical",[5] from ῥήτωρ (rhḗtōr), "public
speaker",[6] related to ῥῆμα (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying",[7] and
ultimately derived from the verb ἐρῶ (erō), "say, speak".[8]
A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious, and other
context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose. The word slogan is derived from slogorn which
was an Anglicisation of the Scottish Gaelic sluagh-ghairm tanmay(sluagh "army", "host"
+ gairm "cry").[1]
Slogans vary from the written and the visual to the chanted and the vulgar. Their
simplerhetorical nature usually leaves little room for detail and a chanted slogan may serve more as
social expression of unified purpose than as communication to an intended audience.
Marketing slogans are often called taglines in the United States or straplines in the UK. Europeans use
the terms baselines, signatures,claims or pay-offs.[2]
"Sloganeering" is a mostly derogatory term for activity which degrades discourse to the level of slogans.
Transfer is a technique used in propaganda and advertising. Also known as association,
this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person,
entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in
order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response,
which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this
technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a
symbol for health and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of
common use of this technique in the United States is for thePresident to be filmed or
photographed in front of the country's flag.[1] Another technique used is celebrity endorsement.[2]
A video news release (VNR) is a video segment made to look like a news
report, but is instead created by a PR firm, advertising agency, marketing firm, corporation,
or government agency. They are provided to television newsrooms to shape public opinion,
promote commercial products and services, publicize individuals, or support other
interests. News producers may air VNRs, in whole or in part, at their discretion or incorporate
them into news reports if they contain information appropriate to a story or of interest to viewers.
Critics of VNRs have called the practice deceptive or a propaganda technique, particularly when
the segment is not identified to the viewers as a VNR. Firms producing VNRs disagree and
equate their use to a press release in video form and point to the fact that editorial judgement in
the worthiness, part or whole, of a VNR's content is still left in the hands of Journalists, Program
Producers or the like. The United StatesFederal Communications Commission is currently
investigating the practice of VNRs.
A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal
term[1] for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something
specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been
communicated.
For example, an advertisement may use a weasel phrase such as "up to 50% off on all
products". This is misleading because the audience is invited to imagine many items reduced by
the proclaimed 50%, but the words taken literally mean only that no discount will exceed 50%,
and in extreme misrepresentation, the advertiser need not reduce any prices, which would still
be consistent with the wording of the advertisement, since "up to 50" most literally means "any
number less than or equal to 50".
In other cases, words with a particular subjective effect are chosen. For example, one person
may speak of "resistance fighters" or "freedom fighters", while another may call the same
subjects "terrorists". The underlying facts are the same, but a quite different impression is given.
The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym
to tergiversate.[2] Weasel words can imply meaning far beyond the claim actually being
made.[3] Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially
loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement, for example
using detensifiers such as "somewhat" or "in most respects".[4]
White propaganda is propaganda which truthfully states its origin.[1][2] It is the
most common type of propaganda. It generally comes from an openly identified source, and is
characterized by gentler methods of persuasion than black propaganda (which purports to come
from the opposite side to that which actually produced it) and grey propaganda (which has no
identifiable source or author). It typically uses standard public relations techniques and one-
sided presentation of an argument. Jacques Ellul, in one of the major books on the subject of
propaganda, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, mentions white propaganda as an
awareness of the public of attempts being made to influence it. There is a Ministry of
Propaganda; one admits that propaganda is being made; its source is known; its aims and
intentions are identified. [3] Throughout the course of a propaganda campaign white propaganda
serve as a cover for black propaganda when the propagandist seeks to mask the former.
Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents
little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell
more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-
mongering, orsensationalism.[1] By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a
pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]
Campbell defines yellow press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines
covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large
illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-
promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers
about 1900 as they battled for circulation.
Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:[3]
1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false
learning from so-called experts
4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.
![A Task-based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information … · 2018-12-12 · cognitive biases [5], [6], [7]. The IEEE VIS conference has held two workshops [8] on cognitive biases](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f0369407e708231d40913cd/a-task-based-taxonomy-of-cognitive-biases-for-information-2018-12-12-cognitive.jpg)
