Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Hindsight Biases01:12

Hindsight Biases

3.5K
Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now? 
3.5K
Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?01:17

Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?

28.9K
The outcome of any hypothesis testing leads to rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. This decision is taken based on the analysis of the data, an appropriate test statistic, an appropriate confidence level, the critical values, and P-values. However, when the evidence suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, is it right to say, 'Accept' the null hypothesis?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null...
28.9K
Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

5.9K
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the...
5.9K
Null and Alternative Hypotheses01:16

Null and Alternative Hypotheses

9.1K
The actual hypothesis testing begins by considering two hypotheses. They are termed  the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As  a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the...
9.1K
The Representativeness Heuristic02:13

The Representativeness Heuristic

15.4K
The representative heuristic describes a biased way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something. For example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.
15.4K
Motivational Bias01:25

Motivational Bias

493
Cognitive bias results from limitations in thinking and information processing, leading to systematic errors in judgment. Conversely, motivational bias stems from personal desires or emotions, causing distortions in perception to align with self-interest. Motivational bias influences how individuals perceive and attribute causes to events, often shaped by personal needs, goals, and self-esteem preservation. This bias can distort judgment, leading to inaccurate assessments of success, failure,...
493

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Beyond analogy: Pragmatic constraints on metaphor production and comprehension.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2026
Same author

Moral Agreement With Punished Acts Decreases Perceptions of Punisher Legitimacy and Willingness to Obey the Law.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2025
Same author

Profitable third-party punishment destabilizes cooperation.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

Enhancing visuospatial mapping in relational category learning.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2025
Same author

Knowledge of politician stock trading reduces congressional legitimacy and compliance with the law.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

Advancing with age: Older adults excel in comprehension of novel metaphors.

Psychology and aging·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 2, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

1.2K

Rational hypocrisy: a Bayesian analysis based on informal argumentation and slippery slopes.

Tage S Rai1, Keith J Holyoak

  • 1Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Los Angeles.

Cognitive Science
|March 21, 2014
PubMed
Summary

Moral hypocrisy may stem from evaluating weak arguments differently, not just dishonesty. Bayesian models explain how perceived category links influence hypocrisy accusations, especially with self-serving motives.

Keywords:
ArgumentationBayesian inferenceHypocrisyMoral reasoning

More Related Videos

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
05:48

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients

Published on: June 12, 2020

5.4K
Humor or Rationality? The Neural Mechanisms of How Agent Type and Language Style Influence Satisfaction with Ride-Hailing Service Failure Recovery
09:53

Humor or Rationality? The Neural Mechanisms of How Agent Type and Language Style Influence Satisfaction with Ride-Hailing Service Failure Recovery

Published on: March 13, 2026

104

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 2, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

1.2K
The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients
05:48

The Adventures of Fundi Intervention Based on the Cognitive and Emotional Processing in Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder Patients

Published on: June 12, 2020

5.4K
Humor or Rationality? The Neural Mechanisms of How Agent Type and Language Style Influence Satisfaction with Ride-Hailing Service Failure Recovery
09:53

Humor or Rationality? The Neural Mechanisms of How Agent Type and Language Style Influence Satisfaction with Ride-Hailing Service Failure Recovery

Published on: March 13, 2026

104

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Moral Psychology
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Moral hypocrisy is often seen as applying different standards to similar situations.
  • This study explores whether evaluating weak arguments, rather than dishonesty, underlies apparent hypocrisy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop a Bayesian framework for understanding accusations of moral hypocrisy.
  • To investigate the role of category membership inferences and self-serving motives in perceived hypocrisy.

Main Methods:

  • Extended Corner, Hahn, and Oaksford's (2006) analysis of slippery slope arguments.
  • Developed a Bayesian framework incorporating prior probabilities and category induction.
  • Conducted three experiments to test the framework's predictions.

Main Results:

  • Hypocrisy inferences increase with perceived shared category membership between cases.
  • Category induction principles predict these inferences.
  • Self-serving motives independently amplify hypocrisy perceptions.

Conclusions:

  • Bayesian analysis of weak arguments offers insight into moral reasoning and hypocrisy.
  • Perceived logical inconsistencies in moral judgments may arise from argument evaluation, not solely dishonesty.