M.A.

Kennerley, 2012

PSY4604 History and Systems in Psychology Margaret A. Kennerley, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION
Welcome to History and Systems of Psychology. If you havent done so already, please take time now to read over the syllabus. If you have any questions, please post them to the discussion section titled syllabus questions. We will address your questions as quickly as possible. Please note that this introduction supplementary reading is far longer than any supplementary material you will be presented in future chapters. Therefore, dont panic. We will study psychologys history with the textbook A History of Modern Psychology, 10th Edition (Schultz & Schultz, 2012) as our guide. However, I believe it is important to take some time now to examine some very important issues regarding how we, as human beings, come to understand ourselves, our relationships with others, and our place in the universe. The American Psychological Association (APA) might ask the question, What influences our study of mind and behavior with the goal of understanding behavior? (APAs definition of Psychology) while the American Psychological Society (APS) would suggest the following: What influences our ability to conduct the scientific study of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors? (APSs definition of Psychology). While there are obviously many factors that influence how individuals differ in how they attain knowledge, we are going to focus on the following broad questions: 1) Are their universal psychological characteristics that influence how human beings perceive the world that hold true across all cultures? 2) How do humans come to know what is true or not true or to put it another way, how do we come to believe?
**The following is adapted in part from O Boyle, C.G. (2006) History of Psychology: A Cultural Perspective. Erlbaum: New York

UNIVERSAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Perceptual and Cognitive Influences The answer to question number one appears to be, yes, there are universal psychological characteristics that impact learning and these characteristics have been selected for during evolution. It is true that the culture an individual belongs to can influence how questions about relationships with others or the sense of self are answered. There are also individual differences in how psychologys questions are answered. These sources of difference may lead us to think that the beliefs of others are bizarre or that their behavior is strange, but the perceptual and cognitive mechanisms that underlie theses different beliefs and behaviors are quite similar. Understanding innate ways of perceiving and thinking may help illustrate why humans so often make the same mistakes in thinking, share similar incorrect assumptions,
1

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

ignore important evidence if it does not support existing beliefs, and are thus likely to answer psychological questions in similar ways. Researchers have begun to learn about some of these innate responses. Simplicity For example, humans prefer simple answers that can be readily understood, even when the questions are complex (Shermer, 1997). In an uncertain and confusing world, where sensory input is constant, intense, and at times overwhelming, humans quickly categorize new information and seek simple solutions and answers (Kagan, 1998). Humans need to quickly ascertain which incoming information has significance and which does not. In the evolutionary past, those individuals able to identify significant information and deduce simple and effective solutions fast were more likely to survive and go on to reproduce (think fight or flight). Thus, the human brain today quickly categorizes incoming information and seeks out simple answers that have high face validity. An answer that has high face validity is one that looks, on the surface of, as though it must be true. It is important to note that face validity is granted when the answer makes sense to anyone, not just a person with knowledge of a subject. For example, observing the suns movement across the sky from morning to night can lead unlearned individuals to conclude that day and night are caused by the sun moving around the earth.

Pattern Recognition Psychologists find that humans are predisposed to infer order, pattern, and meaning in what they experience, even when none is present (Kagan, 1998). The visual/perceptual systems, for example, tend to see whole patterns from partial or even completely random evidence. We have all seen the shape of a Big Dipper among the stars at night, even though the only thing we have really seen are seven points of light. Who has not had the pleasure of seeing a big cute bunny rabbit in the clouds? Humans, like other primates, are a gregarious lot. We enjoy one anothers company. Were mammals, and parental care of the young is essential for the continuance of the hereditary lines. The parent smiles at the child, the child smiles back, and a bond is forged or strengthened. As soon as infants can see, they recognize faces, and we now know that this skill is hardwired in our brains. Those infants who a million years ago were unable to recognize a face smiled back less, and were less likely to win the hearts of their parents, and less likely to prosper. These days nearly every infant is quick to identify a human face, and to respond with a heart-tugging grin.

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

As an inadvertent side effect, the pattern-recognition machinery in our brains is so efficient in extracting a face from a clutter of other detail that we sometimes see faces where there are none. We assemble disconnected patches of light and dark and unconsciously try to see a face. The Man in the Moon is one result. (Sagan, C. 1996, p. 45). Humans infer patterns and meaning not only with visual perceptions, but with other information as well. Errors in logic are committed by drawing conclusions from a few facts, even when no such conclusion is warranted by the available evidence. Retailers know this when they announce low prices on a few very visible items, leading to the inference that overall prices are lower at that store (Pechmann, 1996). People often treat single events as overly representative of whole patterns and small samples as overly representative of entire populations (Schwartz, 1998). If one person wins the lottery with a ticket purchased at the local mini-mart, that store becomes the lucky location to purchase tickets. If one person hits it big in the stock market, the stock market begins to seem like the place to make a fortune.

Cause and Effect These ways of thinking are part of why humans tend to think in terms of cause-andeffect relationships. In the search for simple answers, humans are prone to assume that events that occur together are causally related to one another (Gilovich, 1991). If the assumption that two events that occur together must be causally related is a correct one (poisonous snakes must be avoided), it may aid in survival. If the assumption is incorrect (all snakes must be avoided), it is a superstitious belief. A superstitious belief is defined as acquiring a response that is falsely believed to be associated with a reward such as I have never been bitten by a snake because I avoid all snakes. Some people have a superstitious belief that going outside in cold weather will cause them to catch a cold. Superstitious beliefs are very common and very easily formed (Vyse, 1997). Little evidence is required to develop a superstitious belief, especially if it is also a simple answer that has high face validity. People do catch colds more often during the winter months, and the idea that one can get sick from being uncomfortably damp and cold has high face validity. In reality, being damp and cold can lower your resistance to the bacteria that cause a cold but they are not, of themselves, responsible for the cold. Think about it. Do you develop a cold every time you get damp or cold? Of course, there are times when conclusions are drawn about causal relationships that turn out to be accidentally correct. Nearly all of the medicines in use today have their origins in folk medicines from earlier times and in other cultures, and the usefulness

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

of these folk medicines was almost certainly discovered through accidentally correct superstitious beliefs. Biases in Processing Information There are also biases that influence how incoming information is processed, such as a motivational bias, or the tendency to answer questions in a particular way because of a desire or wish to answer them that way. Filtering Evidence Although there are many verifiable truths about nature, the universe, and the questions that concern psychologists, humans are not naturally predisposed to seek out and believe only the verifiable truth. Instead, we seek out and attend to evidence that supports what is expected and what is already believed to be true. Psychologists call this tendency to selectively attend to the available evidence selective attention. Once a hypothesis has been formed or a conclusion drawn, humans are slow to change their minds, even in the face of disconfirming evidence. Psychologists call this a confirmation bias. Having already formed a hypothesis, we tend to pay attention only to evidence that supports the hypothesis and ignore evidence that refutes the hypothesis. In fact, the more educated people are, the more quickly they will form hypotheses and the more likely they will notice only evidence that confirms those hypotheses (Snelson, 1993). So when we think we already know what is true, we observe only evidence that will be most likely to support those preexisting beliefs. There are also mechanisms of memory that filter evidence and allow for the maintenance of fondly held beliefs. Humans tend to remember only confirming evidence. This is, once a belief is accepted, the evidence that supports the belief is more likely to be remembered and the evidence that refutes the belief is forgotten. As a consequence of this, people come to believe that there is more supporting evidence than refuting evidence. Psychologists call this selective recall. People who call themselves psychics make predictions, only a few of which come to pass but the client is more likely to remember the accurate predictions, or hits, than the inaccurate predictions, or misses, and is thus more likely to conclude that the psychic might really be able to foresee the future. (For one way to learn about how psychics operate, watch an episode or two of the TV show The Mentalist) http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_mentalist/. Desire for Social Consensus The natural human desire and need to maintain bonds with significant others create another motivation bias in thinking. Humans depend on one another for survival. Early hominids (erect, bipedal primate mammals, including ancestral forms of humans) were somewhat defenseless against predators because they did not have large claws or teeth to fight with and could not flee very fast or very far to escape. Like other prey animals, early hominids were dependent on others in their social group to provide sufficient warning to escape at the approach of danger and to join together when it was necessary to fight. Seeking the company of others is thus hard-wired into the human brain. Although there is individual variation in how much company is desired, humans tend to feel a sense of security in the presence of
4

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

others, feel anxious when alone for long periods, and form emotional attachments to those with whom they spend time. This need for social acceptance is likely what explains why beliefs are often influenced by the presence of others and agreement within a group is sought. The desire to maintain cohesion within social groups influences thinking, particularly in the ways that decisions are reached. For example, psychologists find that, in a group decision, everyone involved tends to center on the same focal points and that there is a tendency to overestimate the accuracy of consensus. We tend to think that if the group agrees with us that something is true, then it really must be true. We are even likely to change our opinions to match that of the group if the groups opinion differs from our own, even if we know that the group opinion is wrong (Dawes & Mulford, 1996). Personal Contact Evidence is also filtered based on the degree of personal contact. Personal contact with an object or event results in more weight being given to that experience than other information (Clarke, 1995). For example, if you are acquainted with someone who actually knows the sisterin-law of a man who was purportedly cured of cancer by a psychic surgeon, you might be more likely to believe that particular myth than other people. Actually, the degree of personal contact can be amazingly small. Just knowing that the neighbor of a friend has reported that the neighbor of her cousin was told that the uncle of a friend of her brother visited a psychic who saw the address of the women whom he later married can resulted in the belief that psychics are probably real, or at least an inability to dismiss psychics as charlatans. This is often expressed as We dont know everything there is to know. Its possible that some people have psychic abilities. Optimistic Bias Another motivational mechanism that influences how questions about us and our relationships with others are answered is the human tendency toward unrealistic optimism. Most people under 60 years of age, especially males, tend to be overconfident about their ability to forecast the future, make correct decisions, and understand complex information (Schwartz, 1998). When asked, most people predict that they will be more successful than they turn out to be at answering questions and at comprehending difficult material (Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1977). What this means is that most people suffer from an unwarranted high level of optimism. Although this may mean that they are somewhat out of touch with reality, it is easy to imagine how being overly optimistic, that is hopeful, might enhance survival and thus be a personality characteristic acquired through evolution. So, the answer to the first question, Are there universal psychological characteristics that influence how human beings perceive the world that hold true across all cultures?, is a resounding YES. All over the world, in all cultures and across time, humans use innate emotional reactions, perceptual and cognitive mechanisms, and motivational biases in formulating thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. As we begin our study of the history of modern psychology in the Renaissance years, we will find that this history is replete with answers that reflect these influences. Therefore, we will need to remain wary of both our own and others

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

tendencies to accept simple answers, form superstitious beliefs, assume cause and effect, filter evidence, and agree with others. WAYS OF COMING TO BELIEVE (DETERMINE WHAT IS AND ISNT TRUE) The answer to question number two is a little more complex. What do you know to be true? How do you know what is true? When do you decide for certain that something is not true? If emotions influence beliefs, if simple answers are sought and superstitious beliefs are easily formed, if evidence is selectively attended to and recalled based on what is already believed, if agreement with others is sought even at the cost of ignoring evidence or compromising your own knowledge, how do you know that any belief is true? What kind of evidence do you need to overcome all of those ways in which your thinking can become confused? The study of knowledge and how knowledge is acquired is called epistemology. Epistemological questions originated in philosophy, but they have become central to the study of psychology as well. There are several reasons for their centrality, not the least of which is that they represent the most elemental questions we have asked about ourselves since the beginning of time. One more pragmatic reason though is that psychologists rapidly discovered that no matter how well researched and supported their findings about humans were (and are), more often than not, humans will simply refuse to believe them. Why, because in so many instances, the results of psychological research conflicts with what we have come to believe to be true. Trust, reason, and experience are three ways of coming to believe that something is true. In Western culture, (this course and textbook of the history of psychology should correctly be referred to as the history of Western psychology), as in many other cultures, trust in a variety of beliefs more often influences answers than reason or experience. But, to a greater or lesser extent, all three ways of coming to believe have been used during nearly all time periods and in nearly all places.

Trust For the purposes of this discussion, the word trust is defined as believing something to be true without either logical proof or publicly observable experience or evidence. It may sound paradoxical to say that psychological questions are sometimes answered by simply trusting in a given answer. Nevertheless, that is often exactly how those questions are answered. Your friend may say that the reason he has trouble with authority figures is because he had a difficult relationship with his father. When pressed for how he knows this to be true, he might respond by saying that he just knows that is the case or that explanation just feels right. Trust that something is true comes from a variety of sources, including intuition, authorities, stories, and
6

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

religions. In the case of modern Western cultures, your friends belief may come from the pervasive influence that Freuds theories have had in this culture. Intuition One source of trust is intuition. Because we just feel something must be true, we attribute truth to it. This reliance on intuition is very popular, probably because it is based in emotions, is simple and usually has high face validity. Intuition might be defined as an awareness that seems to arise from within us so that we have direct and immediate knowledge. Although intuitions do seem to arrive in the mind unbidden, in fact, intuitions probably arise from experiences that lie just outside conscious awareness. From that perspective, an argument could be made that intuition represents an experiential way of coming to belief, rather than a way of coming to believe through trust. However, the origin of intuitions usually lies outside conscious awareness. In other words, we are often not aware of what we are noticing. For example, imagine that you run into a friend whom you have not heard from in some time. Your friend seems happy to see you, but your intuition tells you she is not. She seems upset or angry with you. You conclude she IS upset or angry with you. Did this belief just come to you intuitively? Or was there observable evidence of your friends anger that you noticed but of which you were not consciously aware? Did you read your friends body language to arrive at your intuition? Was there something in her tone of voice? If so, then perhaps intuitions are better defined as hypotheses based on subconscious awareness that should be tested out rather than accepted truths. Nevertheless, intuitions often serve as powerful sources of belief, and they can be very convincing because they at least seem to arise solely from within, are part of our immediate personal experience, and thus seem undeniably true. Authorities Authorities, defined as other people or institutions believed to have access to the truth, often serve as important sources of trust in beliefs. In the case of very complex questions, humans often seek out authorities for answers. Sometimes we prefer to be told what the truth is and not to have to figure it out for ourselves. There are also questions, especially complex ones, each of us could never be expected to know the answers to and for which we must rely on the expertise of authorities. Whether we recognize it or not, and whether we even remember the source of our knowledge, much of what we believe to be true came to us originally through the voices of authorities: Evan a casual scrutiny of history reveals that we humans have a sad tendency to make the same mistakes again and again. Were afraid of strangers or anybody whos a little different from us. When we get scared we start pushing people around. We have readily accessible buttons that release powerful emotions when pressed. We can be manipulated into utter senselessness by clever politicians. Give us the right kind of leader and, like the most suggestible subjects of the hypno-therapists, well gladly do just about anything he wants even things we know to be wrong. (Sagan, C, 1996, p. 424).

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

Stories and Narratives Much of what humans believe to be true, both in the present and in the past, comes to us through stories. The Old Testament, for example, is a set of stories that gives one version of the origin of the Earth and of life on Earth. Greek mythology provided the Greeks with rules about how best to live, how to interact with others, and what personality characteristics to strive to achieve. Much of the handed-down wisdom in any culture comes in the form of stories. Supernatural Powers Humans do not seek knowledge purely out of curiosity. Many forms of adversity faced by humans seem inexplicable, and even trusted authorities cannot provide satisfying explanations. For example, crops are destroyed by wind, flood, drought, fire, cold, and swarms of insects. People, including children, are destroyed by these unexpected natural events as well. What explanation can there be for such seemingly inexplicable events? As human culture began to develop, as crops began to be cultivated and animals domesticated, understanding these bad events in nature became literally matters of life and death. These adversities in nature require explanation and solution. At some point in nearly all human cultures, what seems like the capricious and arbitrary forces of nature become attributed to supernatural forces (Vyse, 1997). The most important function of attributing events in nature to supernatural forces appears to be to provide simple and seemingly reasonable explanations for apparently unreasonable events and phenomena. Maybe bad things happen to good people because the supernatural forces have been angered. Maybe they have not been shown the proper respect or sufficient sacrifice has not been made. Even if the event seems inexplicable to us, it may make sense to the supernatural powers that caused it. A belief in supernatural forces forms the foundation of all religions, both past and present. If the supernatural forces are believed to be good or to have our best interests at heart, it can be comforting to believe in them. Bad things may still happen, but comfort can be taken from knowing that the supernatural forces have designed nature and cause it to function in a very purposeful way. Believing that there is an aspect of the self that transcends physical death and can travel to and live in a supernatural realm can be reassuring, too, if we believe that the supernatural realm is a happy one. Belief in the supernatural becomes the vehicle by which, symbolically, anxieties about misfortunes and even death can be calmed. Many explanations for belief in the supernatural have been offered by philosophers and theologians. Psychologists have suggested that these beliefs function to reduce anxiety about the capriciousness of nature, misfortune, and physical death. Reason Reason as Evidence A coherent story put together through logical argument can provide strong evidence in support of a belief. For example, it seems reasonable that spanking children will cause them to

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

behave, even though psychologists know that spanking results in several serious undesired outcomes (Deater-Dekard, Dodge, Bates & Pettit, 1996). Although logical arguments can be used to support beliefs based on trust, they are more often used to explain experiences and observations of the environment in useful ways. If you notice that when you take a hot bath, your sinus headache goes away, you may logically conclude that the hot bath has some curative power over the headache. You may then begin to speculate in logical ways about what aspect of the bath is influencing the headache. If it is simply the relaxation involved, then a nap should have the same effect. The speculation that a nap would also relieve the headache is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a guess about a relationship between variables (the variables in this case being the headache and relaxation). Because humans seem predisposed to see patterns of cause-and-effect in any kind of correlation, they are constantly forming hypotheses. If you take a nap instead of a bath the next time you have a headache, you would be testing your hypothesis. Humans universally test hypotheses. This logical development and testing of hypotheses can be thought of as a rudimentary form of natural science, and it is something that humans do without being taught. Logical argument or reason is thus a way to tie together pieces of evidence that have been observed and to test the validity of the resulting conclusion. The use of statistics is one of the most common instances of using reason as evidence. We will see that, in Western cultures, considerable trust is placed in evidence that is presented in terms of numbers. Reasoning begins with premises, or assertions that are presumed to be true, and ends with conclusions logically supported by the premises. If all of the premises used to support a conclusion are true, then the logical conclusions must also be true. When the premises are all true, but the conclusion is not logical, some form of a rhetorical trick has probably been used to reach the conclusion. Rhetoric The skillful use of words to outline an argument is called rhetoric. Rhetoric is a useful tool to help people communicate ideas effectively to one another. Rhetoric can be used to outline both logical and illogical arguments. Most of us are vulnerable to a number of tricks in how words are used and can easily be convinced of the truth of a claim through the use of rhetorical tricks. It is important to note that use and teaching of rhetorical tricks originated in ancient Greece. The tradition was strictly adhered to by and taught only to the clergy of the Church in Rome for over 1,000 years. Today, they are considered to be a necessary and highly desirable skill for politicians, lawyers, debaters, teachers, advertisers, and anyone who wants or needs to persuade others to do their bidding. A few such tricks are described as follows. We can sometimes be convinced that if a claim cannot be disproved, then the claim must be true. This is a trick - an illogical assumption that goes like this. If I tell you that I was visited in the night by my dead uncle Ted, (or a vampire, or an angel), can you prove that I was not? If you cannot, then my claim stands. It is not even your word against mine, because you were not there to witness the visitation. Therefore, what I say must be true. Related to this trick are black or white arguments in which either/or terms are used and logical thinking is clouded. The if you are not with us, then you are against us argument is a common one.

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

Some rhetorical tricks involve claiming that the unexplained is inexplicable. In other words, objects or events for which natural causes are not currently identified must therefore arise from some mysterious or supernatural cause. For example, no one is yet able to explain exactly how dreams happen, although there is considerable ongoing research into some of the neurological mechanisms involved. Does the fact that the origins of dreams cannot yet be fully explained mean that dreams must be the manifestations of spirits from beyond the physical world or messages from a supernatural realm? Is it necessarily true that a phenomenon that cannot be explained must therefore have a supernatural explanation? Think of how many natural events such as the weather, illness, even pregnancy, were considered at one time to be supernatural events. Arguments that use their own assertions as evidence of their validity are often used as rhetorical tricks to prove the logic of a position. These are referred to as circular arguments. Assuming that you are angry because you have been wronged, and the evidence that you have been wronged is that you are angry, is a circular argument. Here is another common example of a circular argument: Living things live because they are endowed with a life-force, which is a form of energy that scientists have not yet discovered; even though scientists have found no evidence of this form of energy, it must exists because how could living things live without a life-force? Similarly, arguments that reduce the issue to a level where it no longer makes any sense, called reductio ad absurdum, can also make something illogical seem logical. Zenos paradox presented below is a good example of a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Zenos Paradox The Greek teacher Zeno submits this local paradox for your puzzlement. Imagine that you are standing at the entrance to a great hall, and you wish to cross the room to the stage. Before you begin to cross to the stage, you are given the following instructions: Before you can cross all the way to the stage, you must first walk halfway across the room. That seems strange but not illogical. However, having crossed half the distance, you are now told that you must cross half of the remaining distance. In fact, you are instructed that each time you wish to proceed you must first cross one half of the remaining distance. What this means logically is that you can never go all the way across because you must first cross one half of the remaining distance. The inevitable reductio ad absurdum conclusion: Logical argument has just proven that you can never get anywhere because first you have to get halfway there.

Logical argument dates back to Aristotle and so does its misuse. Logical argument requires the use of language to communication that logic to others and is thus subject to
10

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

rhetorical tricks. Debaters, politicians, lawyers, and for over 1,000 years, priests in the Christian Roman Church, among others, are or were well versed in the artful use of rhetoric. Despite the fact that it can be misused, logical argument or reason is an essential component of both what we believe to be true and how we seek knowledge. For some further information about and examples of rhetoric, take a few moments to look at the following sites http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/ Experience A third way of coming to believe that something is true is through publicly observable experience. This usually means using sensory equipment (sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell) to observe the environment. All animals possess the ability to observe, but sensory abilities vary greatly. Dogs, for example, have senses of smell and hearing that are far superior to those of humans. Similarly, the visual equipment of most birds allows them to observe the environment in much more visual detail than can humans. The capabilities of the sensory equipment possessed by most humans seem to fall somewhere in the midrange to very modest range compared with that of other animals. For most people in the Western world, experience forms the primary evidence that something is true. It can be hard to believe that someone close to us has died until we actually see the body of the deceased person. Because sensory experience forms the primary evidence for truth, it is important that we trust that our observations do reveal reality accurately. Fortunately, for most of us most of the time, and for most practical purposes, observations do accurately reflect the real world. If you see a doorway in a wall, most of the time it really is a doorway that can actually be walked through. Occasionally, however, observations turn out to be false. If a puddle appears in the middle of the road on a hot day far off in the distance, it may only be a mirage, meaning an accidental perception resulting from how the visual system functions. When running a very high fever, it is not unusual to see visions referred to as hallucinations. If you see a flying saucer glide across the sky while driving on a dark and stormy night, it might just be the reflection of light in a raindrop sliding across the windshield. In addition, the work of Social Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has repeatedly shown that eye witness testimony is often inaccurate (Loftus, 1979). From a practical standpoint, humans would not be able to function in the physical universe without trusting observations, but observations and experiences are not entirely foolproof. References Clarke, D. (1995). Experience and other reasons given for belief and disbelief in paranormal and religious phenomena. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 60, 371-384.
11

M.A. Kennerley, 2012

Dawes, R.M. & Mulford, M. (1996). The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 65, 201-211. Deater-Dekard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1996). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to childrens externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1997). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552-564. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isnt so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pechmann, C. (1996). Do consumers over-generalize one-sided comparative price claims, and are more stringent regulations needed? Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 150-162. Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballintine. Schwartz, T. (1998, Summer). The bull and the bear and the woolly mammoth. Oregon Quarterly, pp. 23-25. Eugene: University of Oregon Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things. New York: Freeman. Snelson, J.S. (1993). The ideological immune system. Skeptic, 1, 44-55. Vyse, S.A. (1997). Believing in magic: the psychology of superstition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

12