Jumping to conclusions (officially the jumping conclusion bias, often abbreviated as JTC, and also referred to as the inference-observation confusion [1] ) is a psychological term referring to a communication obstacle where one "judge[s] or decide[s] something without having all the facts; to reach unwarranted conclusions". [2] [3] In other words, "when I fail to distinguish between what I observed first hand from what I have only inferred or assumed". [1] Because it involves making decisions without having enough information to be sure that one is right, this can give rise to poor or rash decisions that often cause more harm to something than good.
Three commonly recognized subtypes are as follows: [4] [5]
Jumping to conclusions is a form of cognitive distortion. Often, a person will make a negative assumption when it is not fully supported by the facts. [6]
In some cases misinterpretation of what a subject has sensed, i.e., the incorrect decoding of incoming messages, can come about due to jumping to conclusions. [7] This can often be because the same sign can have multiple meanings. An example given in Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions is of an employee avoiding eye contact while being questioned over a missing item – it may suggest their guilt to the crime, but it may also suggest other things such as their embarrassment at their integrity being questioned, or even a "gesture of respect for...authority". Even if the questionee shows more signs of guilt, such as sweating and avoiding answers, one is still making an assumption when they link these symptoms to the theft. These assumptions are examples of jumping to conclusions, and could have resulted in faux pas if pursued further without the evidence to back it up. [8]
While we all "jump to conclusions" in a sense by making inferences and assumptions based on the information we have available, and quite often a job requires that one acts upon educated guesswork, in such cases one is making a calculated risk – they are aware they are basing their decisions on an assumption which has a degree of uncertainty associated with it. Mistakes are much more likely when people are unaware that they have jumped to conclusions, and instead think that their assumptions are actually knowledge. [9]
It is easy for interviewers to jump to conclusions, often resulting in a "costly hiring error due to false inference". Asking for clarification is a good way to help investigate inferences further. [10]
An example of jumping to conclusions is when one makes assumptions about what someone else is going to say, often by cutting them off with the words "I know what you're going to say". Saying things like "wow, geez, and what a shame" can make one come across as more interested in looking supportive than what the other person is saying. Therefore, assuming that a story-teller wants overly-compassionate responses can have its downsides, especially if they seem non-genuine and only maintained in order to uphold some kind of social expectation. [11]
Working out what context a phrase is being used in can help avoid one jumping to conclusions. [12]
In order to prevent the wrongful assessment of children, observation is an essential part of an early years worker's job. Multiple observations, of the child reacting in different circumstances, should be carried out to help show a context for certain symptoms and allow then to work out if they are part of a larger issue. [13] Meta-analyses have linked exaggerated jumping to conclusions with the formation of delusions. [14]
When medical professionals misdiagnose, it's often the result of having jumped to conclusions. Jerome Groopman, author of How Doctors Think, says that "most incorrect diagnoses are due to physicians' misconceptions of their patients, not technical mistakes like a faulty lab test". Ways in which doctors jump to conclusions include the following: they assume the patient will state all relevant symptoms (or are forced to make an assumption due to thinking that seeking further personal information may lead to embarrassment), they assume the patient will not want to undergo any unpleasant (albeit effective) treatment, they assume the patient is a hypochondriac and therefore do not take their complaints seriously, or they make a diagnosis even though they have not heard or understood all of the complaint and for whatever reason do not ask for clarification. [15]
Urban Legends by Jan Harold Brunvand [16] describes how jumping to conclusions, along with the techniques of slapstick humour, can be used to create comedy. The example provided by the book (called The Gerbil-Caused Accident) involves a woman driving to her son's show and tell lesson, with a pet gerbil in a box by her side. It escapes and begins to crawl up her pant leg. She pulls over, gets out of the car, and proceeds to jump up and down and shake her leg in order to get rid of the animal. A passerby think she is having a seizure, so he approaches and wraps his arms around her to calm her down. Another passerby sees the struggle, and assuming the first passerby is an attacker, punches him in the face. The woman then attempts to explain what really happened. The "neat" 3-part structure and the unresolved conclusion make this example 'legendary'. Sometimes these stories are adapted from real situations, and students are sometimes asked to work out the legal issues involved. [16]
In this context, jumping to conclusions is a theme of urban legends. It serves as a twist in which "someone jumps to an incorrect conclusion, thus setting himself or herself up for some kind of uncomfortable, often hilarious downfall". [17]
Statistical inference is the process of using data analysis to infer properties of an underlying distribution of probability. Inferential statistical analysis infers properties of a population, for example by testing hypotheses and deriving estimates. It is assumed that the observed data set is sampled from a larger population.
Statistics, like all mathematical disciplines, does not infer valid conclusions from nothing. Inferring interesting conclusions about real statistical populations almost always requires some background assumptions. Those assumptions must be made carefully, because incorrect assumptions can generate wildly inaccurate conclusions.
A statistical hypothesis test is a method of statistical inference used to decide whether the data at hand sufficiently support a particular hypothesis. Hypothesis testing allows us to make probabilistic statements about population parameters.
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument which may appear to be a well-reasoned argument if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.
Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
In scientific research, the null hypothesis is the claim that no relationship exists between two sets of data or variables being analyzed. The null hypothesis is that any experimentally observed difference is due to chance alone, and an underlying causative relationship does not exist, hence the term "null". In addition to the null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis is also developed, which claims that a relationship does exist between two variables.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to "carry forward". Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular evidence to a universal conclusion. A third type of inference is sometimes distinguished, notably by Charles Sanders Peirce, contradistinguishing abduction from induction.
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a general principle is derived from a body of observations. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning, where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous manner. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is called logic.
Mathematical statistics is the application of probability theory, a branch of mathematics, to statistics, as opposed to techniques for collecting statistical data. Specific mathematical techniques which are used for this include mathematical analysis, linear algebra, stochastic analysis, differential equations, and measure theory.
Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.
Neurophilosophy or philosophy of neuroscience is the interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and philosophy that explores the relevance of neuroscientific studies to the arguments traditionally categorized as philosophy of mind. The philosophy of neuroscience attempts to clarify neuroscientific methods and results using the conceptual rigor and methods of philosophy of science.
Relevance theory is a framework for understanding the interpretation of utterances. It was first proposed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, and is used within cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. The theory was originally inspired by the work of Paul Grice and developed out of his ideas, but has since become a pragmatic framework in its own right. The seminal book, Relevance, was first published in 1986 and revised in 1995.
Communication noise refers to influences on effective communication that influence the interpretation of conversations. While often looked over, communication noise can have a profound impact both on our perception of interactions with others and our analysis of our own communication proficiency.
An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. Arguments can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective.
Frequentist inference is a type of statistical inference based in frequentist probability, which treats “probability” in equivalent terms to “frequency” and draws conclusions from sample-data by means of emphasizing the frequency or proportion of findings in the data. Frequentist-inference underlies frequentist statistics, in which the well-established methodologies of statistical hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are founded.
Analytical skill is the ability to deconstruct information into smaller categories in order to draw conclusions. Analytical skill consists of categories that include logical reasoning, critical thinking, communication, research, data analysis and creativity. Analytical skill is taught in contemporary education with the intention of fostering the appropriate practises for future professions. The professions that adopt analytical skill include educational institutions, public institutions, community organisations and industry.
Philosophy of logic is the area of philosophy that studies the scope and nature of logic. It investigates the philosophical problems raised by logic, such as the presuppositions often implicitly at work in theories of logic and in their application. This involves questions about how logic is to be defined and how different logical systems are connected to each other. It includes the study of the nature of the fundamental concepts used by logic and the relation of logic to other disciplines. According to a common characterization, philosophical logic is the part of the philosophy of logic that studies the application of logical methods to philosophical problems, often in the form of extended logical systems like modal logic. But other theorists draw the distinction between the philosophy of logic and philosophical logic differently or not at all. Metalogic is closely related to the philosophy of logic as the discipline investigating the properties of formal logical systems, like consistency and completeness.
In the field of real estate appraisal, extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions are two closely related types of assumptions that are made as predicating conditions of an appraisal problem. Under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), they are two of the assignment conditions on which an appraisal assignment is predicated, the others being general assumptions, laws & regulations, supplemental standards, jurisdictional exceptions, and other conditions affecting scope of work. Making the distinction between the two is important when compiling or reporting appraisals in the United States or other jurisdictions where USPAP is considered the professional standard because USPAP has different specific disclosure requirements for each in an appraisal report and specifies different conditions under which each can be made.
{{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)