I want to describe a kind of cognitive bias. For the purposes of this question, assume the hypothetical is as ideal as it says (the question is not whether this exact scenario exists, but rather, whether a phenomenon of this nature exists).
Consider a group of 100 people who like movies. 50 of them have a marked preference for action films, the other half have an equally marked liking for costume drama.
In all objectively- measurable ways, the degree to which each group prefers their preference is equivalent. Also, there is nothing particularly distinctive about any other personality trait of either set.
So they form a whole that is equally divided in every reasonable sense.
Yet when interviewed, the subject material of the action films lends itself to being described in superlatives, and in an animated fashion, whereas the subject material of the costume dramas - although no less interesting to its adherents - is described in words that individually have less impact.
This leads the interviewer to the mistaken impression that the action films group cares more about their genre than the costume drama group. Perhaps it even generates the impression that there are more individuals in the action movie group.
Is this a recognised phenomenon in psychology. If so, does it have a name (a distinct one as a subset of just ‘cognitive bias’)?
Reason for asking (as it is normal for someone to question why these things must be labelled) - if I know the name, it’s easier to perform further research on.the topic.
Sounds like you’re describing a response bias, not a cognitive bias. I don’t know if this has a name, but certainly the issue of biases in rating scales and survey responses is well known and studied in social sciences.
Can I restate this to see if I understand it? Are you saying that some subjects are more likely to be discussed with words of stronger emotional impact than others, and because if this difference the listeners might draw erroneous conclusions as to the people’s feelings about the subjects relative to each other?
If my understanding is correct, then I can say conclusively – maybe.
What you are suggesting is certainly possible if the two groups are asked open ended questions. But questions like these are the hardest to quantify, sometimes impossible to. However, serious researchers looking at the question should be able to control for that by controlling the language used, such as asking questions about both subjects using the same terms. And by designing their questions in ways so the answers can be quantified and conclusions drawn – that is why so may polls are done using yes/no answers or rating things on a scale.
Yes, or indeed, erroneous conclusions as to the popularity of the feelings.
Although I’ve described a controlled scenario, I’m actually interested in this phenomenon in the wild - for example(only), fans of big breasts being assumed to be big fans of big breasts, obviously more plentiful and excitable than the lovers of small breasts - who are obviously more modest, humble, frugal. Or are they? Maybe they are, but maybe not for any of the reasons they might be considered to be.
So it’s a bit like saying to a crowd “Hands up everyone who likes stretching their arms! Now hands up everyone who hates it” in that the mode of enquiry affects the results. But only a bit.
Sort of. I think it’s best described as unintentional label inheritance or something like that. The sweepers of the floor at the Grand Hotel are the Grand Hotel Floor Sweepers. Quite aside from any prestige and status that might genuinely accompany their employment, they accidentally acquire a label that alters the perception people may have toward them.
I don’t know about the specific effect, but perhaps looking into the general direction of linguistic relativity and the Sapir-Whorf effect might be interesting; the basic idea is that language shapes thought, in the sense that what we can think is (at least in part) determined by how we are able to express it, which might be able to accommodate the notion that what can only be expressed in high impact vocabulary tends to get overrepresented (to ourselves, and in consequence, towards others).
Interesting thought, by the way; it opens up a question on how the public opinion influences itself: a group originally divided evenly as in your example may tend to skew towards the perceived higher impact side eventually, since that side is perceived by the public to be more widely represented, causing those easily influenced to adopt the apparent ‘majority’ view, thus fabricating a ‘group consensus’ out of thin air…
Plus it would also modify the way advertising works, or which movies/programs get slotted for production; this would in turn create its own snowballs. A perception that action movies will sell would cause a ton of action movies, which would lead to a glut of action movies, which would lead to a sudden swing to a ton of romcoms. Just speculating like crazy here, of course; what I know about sociology fits in the head of a very small pin.
Well, that would be called “experimenter effect” or “experimental demand”. However, I do not think i tis quite what Mangetout is asking about.
Mangetout are you looking for a name for the fact that some preferences (regardless of their actual strength) seem to evoke more enthusiastic language from those who hold them, or a term for the way in which such differences in language might mislead a lisetner about the real strength of the underlying preferences?
The latter, mostly, but the latter can be an effect of the former cause (or other causes such as the perception or preconceptions of the listener)
I’m not sure I’d completely limit it to spoken/written language either - other behaviours might concievably trigger the effect too, although language is the big one.
Ok, another scenario. Imagine someone watches a puppy playing on the lawn and the watcher seems to take a great delight in the antics of the puppy. Then the person watches a child playing on the lawn and seems somewhat indifferent to the child.
So perhaps you the observer might conclude that if a truck went out of control and bore down on the puppy and the child, the person would be more likely to save the puppy, who has seemingly provided the most pleasure/amusement/entertainment.
But I’m not sure where to go from there.
Why isn’t “misinterpretation” a sufficient descriptor for such circumstances? What do you feel is lacking from it?
I think at least part of what you’re talking about is (or is related to) the availability heuristic. (The link will also take you to the related concepts of salience and vividness.)
Obviously it’s a category of misinterpretation, but so are a lot of other things. This seems specific enough that it might already have been the subject of study.
Not sure what to saybaboit the puppy/child example. Doesn’t seem closely related to what I’m describing.
Oh OK - I think the reason it threw me is just that I’ve only really been thinking of this in the context of groups - just because the potential for blurring of labels is so much greater (even only on a purely semantic level, for example, ‘The Big Breasts Fan Club’ could be a club fixated on large breasts, or a big club, or a club composed of ‘big’=enthusiastic members - or any combination of the three in fact).
I don’t have much to contribute in the way of knowledge of how this is treated in the sciences, but I can certainly say this is a phenomenon of which the game development industry seems to be completely unaware. Catering to only the loudest, most active minority has lead more than one franchise to its doom.