Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 15, 2026
06:51
The Modified Temptation Resistance Task: A Paradigm to Elicit Children's Strategic Lie-telling
Published on: April 6, 2018
8.9K
Value-impregnated factual claims and slippery-slope arguments
Gert Helgesson1, Niels Lynøe2, Niklas Juth2
1Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. gert.helgesson@ki.se.
Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy
|September 2, 2016
Summary
Slippery-slope arguments may be rationalizations of personal values, not predictions of future events. This research suggests that estimations of long-term consequences are influenced by individual beliefs, explaining support for weak arguments.
Area of Science:
- Philosophy of science
- Ethics
- Cognitive science
Background:
- Slippery-slope arguments are commonly used to oppose actions by predicting dire long-term consequences.
- Previous research suggests personal values influence perceptions of future outcomes in controversial debates, like physician-assisted suicide.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate whether slippery-slope arguments are based on objective future estimations or are rationalizations of pre-existing personal values.
- To explore the psychological underpinnings of belief in weak slippery-slope arguments.
Main Methods:
- Conceptual analysis of slippery-slope arguments.
- Examination of the role of personal values in predicting future consequences.
- Theoretical framework linking rationalization to argument acceptance.
Main Results:
- Slippery-slope arguments, when reliant on future event estimations, may function as rationalizations of personal values.
- This rationalization process can explain the persistence of support for even poorly constructed slippery-slope arguments.
Conclusions:
- The persuasive power of slippery-slope arguments may stem from their alignment with personal values rather than their predictive accuracy.
- Understanding this mechanism is crucial for evaluating the validity of such arguments in ethical and policy debates.
Related Concept Videos
03:26Framing Effects
8.0K
Information is everywhere and its presentation—such as how and when items are presented—can impact our perceptions and decisions surrounding the info. This broad concept umbrellas framing effects—influences that occur due to the way information is framed in its appearance, whether it’s purely the order or the specific wording of a message. Let’s take a look at numerous ways in which two versions of something can objectively say the same thing, yet we respond in...
8.0K
01:25Motivational Bias
461
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,...
461
02:20Routes of Persuasion
69.0K
Persuasion is the process of changing our attitude toward something based on some kind of communication. Much of the persuasion we experience comes from outside forces. How do people convince others to change their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors? What communications do you receive that attempt to persuade you to change your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors?
69.0K
01:31Confirmation Biases
8.5K
The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
8.5K
01:17Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?
29.8K
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...
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null...
29.8K
01:16Deductive Reasoning
71.4K
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, is the type of logic used in hypothesis-based science. In deductive reasoning, the pattern of thinking moves in the opposite direction as compared to inductive reasoning, which means that it uses a general principle or law to predict specific results. From those general principles, a scientist can deduce and predict the specific results that would be valid as long as the general principles are valid.
For example, a researcher can deduce specific predictions...
For example, a researcher can deduce specific predictions...
71.4K