A good hypothesis

The process of establishing a new scientific theory is necessarily a grueling one; new theories must survive an adverse gauntlet of skeptics who are experts in their particular area of science; the original theory may then need to be revised to satisfy those objections.

A good hypothesis

Veridicality Others have suggested alternative explanations for the derogation of victims. In order to reduce the guilt, they may devalue the victim. They conducted one study that found derogation of victims occurred even by observers who were not implicated in the process of the experiment and thus had no reason to feel guilty.

This would mean that the primary motivation is not to restore a belief in a just world, but to reduce discomfort caused by empathizing. Studies have shown that victim derogation does not suppress subsequent helping activity and that empathizing with the victim plays a large role when assigning blame.

According to Ervin Staub[16] devaluing the victim should lead to lesser compensation if restoring belief in a just world was the primary motive; instead, there is virtually no difference in compensation amounts whether the compensation A good hypothesis or follows devaluation.

Psychopathy has been linked to the lack of just-world maintaining strategies, possibly due to dampened emotional reactions and lack of empathy.

This work, which began in the A good hypothesis and continues today, has investigated how observers react to victims of random calamities like traffic accidents, as well as rape and domestic violenceillnesses, and poverty.

Violence[ edit ] Researchers have looked at how observers react to victims of rape and other violence. In a formative experiment on rape and belief in a just world by Linda Carli and colleagues, researchers gave two groups of subjects a narrative about interactions between a man and a woman.

A good hypothesis

The description of the interaction was the same until the end; one group received a narrative that had a neutral ending and the other group received a narrative that ended with the man raping the woman. Subjects judged the rape ending as inevitable and blamed the woman in the narrative for the rape on the basis of her behavior, but not her characteristics.

Observers blamed the perpetrator only in the most significant case of violence, in which a male struck an acquaintance. Given other research on beliefs in a just world, it would be expected that observers would derogate and blame bullying victims, but the opposite has been found: Illness[ edit ] Other researchers have found that observers judge sick people as responsible for their illnesses.

One experiment showed that persons suffering from a variety of illnesses were derogated on a measure of attractiveness more than healthy individuals were.

Keep Exploring Britannica

In comparison to healthy people, victim derogation was found for persons presenting with indigestion, pneumonia, and stomach cancer. Moreover, derogation was found to be higher for those suffering from severer illnesses, except for those presenting with cancer. Strong belief in a just world is associated with blaming the poor, with weak belief in a just world associated with identifying external causes of poverty including world economic systems, warand exploitation.

Psychological response to rape and Self blame Some research on belief in a just world has examined how people react when they themselves are victimized. An early paper by Dr. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman found that rape victims often blame their own behavior, but not their own characteristics, for their victimization.

Theoretical refinement[ edit ] Subsequent work on measuring belief in a just world has focused on identifying multiple dimensions of the belief.

This work has resulted in the development of new measures of just-world belief and additional research. These distinct beliefs are differentially associated with positive mental health.

Limited studies have examined ideological correlates of the belief in a just world.

A good hypothesis

These studies have found sociopolitical correlates of just-world beliefs, including right-wing authoritarianism and the protestant work ethic. Much research conducted shows that beliefs in a just world are evident cross-culturally.

One study tested beliefs in a just world of students in 12 countries. This study found that in countries where the majority of inhabitants are powerless, belief in a just world tends to be weaker than in other countries. It may also serve as ego-protective belief for certain individuals by justifying maladaptive behavior.

Others have suggested that this relationship holds only for beliefs in a just world for oneself. Beliefs in a just world for others are related instead to the negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation observed in other studies.The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished.

In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect. Good genes hypothesis: Good genes hypothesis, in biology, an explanation which suggests that the traits females choose when selecting a mate are honest indicators of the male’s ability to pass on genes that will increase the survival or reproductive success of her offspring.

Although no completely unambiguous examples. Overall, this was a good book with some provocative original ideas - but with some deep flaws. THE GOOD I think Newport made a great original contribution to understanding career development with his concept of Career Capital.

The two-sample t-test is one of the most commonly used hypothesis tests in Six Sigma work. It is applied to compare whether the average difference between two groups is really significant or if it is due instead to random chance.

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more alphabetnyc.com is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study.

The Innovator's Hypothesis: How Cheap Experiments Are Worth More than Good Ideas (MIT Press) 1st Edition.

Information for authors