3. Do you know
Why fear of repression was not an adequate explanation for the
manifestations in Leipzig in 1989?
What were the two main explanations then?
If the manifestations were not coordinated by the groups of
opposition to the regime, how did they came about to be?
How could cooperation in a public good experiment be
maintained? How could we avoid the free-rider problem?
AT
Tutorial 2
4. Do you know
What are the parts that compose an argument?
What is the difference between a valid and a sound argument?
Can arguments be false? How about statements? What kind of
statements are we interested on?
What is a woof (WFF)?
What are the five operators we covered in propositional logic?
What is a Venn diagram? Can you represent an argument with a
venn diagram?
What is a truth table? Are you able to represent an argument
with a truth table?
AT
Lecture 3…
5. Do you know
What is the difference between propositional and syllogistic
logic? Can you give examples of typical wff’s for each?
What are the three rules of inference? Can you illustrate how
they vary for propositional or syllogistic logic?
What are the five words you need for syllogistic logic?
What are the 8 forms of wff’s?
What is the difference between capital and small case letters?
How can you test the validity of an argument in syllogistic logic?
What are the steps you need to follow?
AT
Lecture 3…
6. Do you know
What is the difference between generalizing and specifying?
For an explanation to be informative what part should be more
general or more specific?
How can we make this happen?
AT
Lecture 3…
7. Do you know
How to translate statements into wff’s?
How to derive conclusions when you have only the premises?
What form should the conclusion take given the premises you
have?
Identify premises and conclusion in an argument that is not in
order?
AT
Tutorial 3
9. Aims of the lecture
What defines a good explanation?
How to find out whether a theory/explanation is good?
How to formulate informative theories/hypotheses?
What to do with wrong explanations/theories?
AT
10. What is a good explanation?
A good explanation is an explanation where all conditions of adequacy are met
(Hempel / Oppenheim, week 2)
Condition 1
The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least
one singular statement
Condition 2
Condition 3
The explanans must have empirical content
Condition 4
All statements of the explanans must be true
AT
11. Compare this to Popper (p 32) “testing the internal
consistency of theories”
!
(First line “along which the testing of theories could be
carried out” – out of four)
Condition 1
Condition 1
The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans.
AT
12. …
think about how “condition 4” relates to what Popper
(reading this week) is saying about the difference of
“verifiability” and “falsifiability” as criteria for good
theories! (pp. 40)
Stop and think…
Condition 4
All statements of the explanans must be true.
Condition 4?
AT
14. Instructions
Take out a piece of paper and write on it your student number
You will see two paintings in the next slide.
Please write which painting do you prefer (A or B)
AT
16. Instructions
In this experiment a sender and a receiver interact in the division of a set of points.
If your student number ends in (1-3-5-7-9) you are a receiver
and you do not make any more decisions.
If your student number ends in (0-2-4-6-8) you are a sender.
The sender is endowed with 10 points that she/he can divide
between her/himself and the receiver. The sender can give to
the receiver (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, or 10) points and keep the rest.
AT
17. Decision
If your student number ends in (0-4-8) you will be paired with
a receiver who likes the same painting you like
Write your decision on the paper and hand it in to me
If your student number ends in (2-6) you will be paired with a
receiver who likes the opposite painting you do
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Please choose the number of points you want to send to the receiver
AT
19. Immigration
In The Netherlands, there was a website created by one of the
political parties, so that people could write complaints about
their Eastern European neighbors, co-workers, etc?
AT
Social Identity Theory
Why would someone do this?
According to SIT people belong to social categories (race,
gender, tastes) and they want to evaluate positively their group
20. Immigration
SIT says that what I could do to make my feeling about my self-
concept better is to derogate other groups
AT
What if I belong to a group that has a negative evaluation
This could be a theory that can help us generate predictions about what kind
of people would use this kind of website
SIT would suggest that are people who are in the bottom of the
ladder in the Netherlands, so that they feel threatened
21. Henri Tajfel
(1919 – 1982)
John C. Turner
Example: Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner (1986)
Condition 1
AT
Google Scholar [CITATION]: The social identity
theory of intergroup behavior. H., Tajfel, J,.
Turner (2004)- Cited by 5112
22. Very successful social psychological approach to stereotyping,
intergroup competition, intergroup conflict, and political protest
Core claim: People seek to optimize their social identity (= part
of identity that is derived from group memberships)
The pure categorization into in- and out-groups triggers
comparison between groups and motivates individuals to act in
such a way that they perceive their in-groups as “better”.
Condition 1
Example: Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner (1986)
AT
Minimal group paradigm experiments.
23. Is it really possible to derive the propositions
on the right from those on the left?
Premises / “Explanans” Conclusions (“explanandum”)
Quotes from Tajfel and Turner (1986):
1. Individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self-
esteem: they strive for a positive self-concept
2. Social groups or categories and the membership of
them are associated with positive or negative value
connotations. Hence, social identity may be
positive or negative according to the evaluations
(which tend to be socially consensual, either
within or across groups) of those groups that
contribute to an individual’s social identity.
3. The evaluation of one’s own group is determined
with reference to specific other groups through
social comparisons in terms of value-laden
attributes and characteristics. Positively discrepant
comparisons between in-group and out-group
produce high prestige; negatively discrepant
comparisons between in-group and out-group
result in low prestige.
From these assumptions, some related theoretical
principles can be derived:
1. Individuals strive to achieve or to maintain
positive social identity.
2. Positive social identity is based to a large extent
on favorable comparisons that can be made
between the in-group and some relevant out-
groups: the in-group must be perceived as
positively differentiated or distinct from the
relevant out-groups.
3. When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals
will strive either to leave their existing group or
join some more positively distinct group and/or to
make their existing group more positively distinct.
AT
24. Problem 1:
This is the definition of “social identity”:
It consists, for the purpose of the present discussion, of
those aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from
the social categories to which he perceives himself as
belonging.
Does this imply the following?
1. Individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self-
esteem: they strive for a positive self-concept
1. Individuals strive to achieve or to maintain positive
social identity.
All individuals (I) enhance
(=maintain) their self-image
(=concept=esteem) (C).
One way how individuals
enhance their self-image (C)
is to enhance their social
identity (S).
All Individuals (I) enhance
their social identity (S)
all I is C
some C is S
all I is S
AT
25. Is this a valid argument? I
CS
X
X
There are I which are not S. Furthermore, if we exclude the upper cross, then all
premises are true but no I is S.
What is wrong?
In other words:
The “self-concept” consists of several parts and “social identity” is only one part.
Accordingly, there might be other ways of achieving a positive self-concept besides
achieving a positive social identity.
all I* is C
some C is S
----------------
all I is S*
AT
26. The star test consist of three steps:
Step 1: Find the “distributed letters”
A letter is distributed if it occurs just after “all” or anywhere after “no” or “not”
e.g. all A is B
no A is B
x is A
x is not y
Step 2: Star premise letters which are distributed and conclusion letters
which are not distributed
e.g. all A* is B
some C is A
- - - - - - - - - -
some C* is B*
Testing whether a syllogism is valid:
The star test
AT
27. Step 3: Decide: A syllogism is valid if and only if every capital letter is
starred exactly once & if there is exactly one star on the right hand side.
Each capital letter is stared exactly once and there is exactly one
star at the right hand side (see the B). Thus, this syllogism is valid
e.g. all A* is B
some C is A
- - - - - - - - - -
some C* is B*
AT
28. Assume that the only way to achieve a positive self-concept is to achieve a
positive social identity
In other words, we assume that all C is S.
What could we do to make the argument valid?
Possibility 1:
all I* is C
some C is S
- - - - - - - - - -
all I is S*
all I* is C
all C* is S
- - - - - - - - - -
all I is S*
This is valid
All possible parts of I are S. This
shows that the argument is valid.
I
CS
AT
29. What could we do to make the argument valid?
Assume that the only way to achieve a positive self-concept is to achieve a
positive social identity
We have shown that this would work, however, is this a plausible assumption?
Possibility 1:
Possibility 2:
Make explicit all potential ways to achieve a positive self-concept and include
assumptions about conditions under which individuals will prefer certain
strategies.
!
This is a lot of work mainly because this requires a theory of decision making
(when to chose which alternative). However, before this is not done, it is very
difficult to test SIT.
(Think of Popper’s criterion of “falsifiability”)
30. Problem 2:
Does this imply the following?
1. Individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self-
esteem: they strive for a positive self-concept
AT
3. The evaluation of one’s own group is determined with
reference to specific other groups through social
comparisons in terms of value-laden attributes and
characteristics. Positively discrepant comparisons between
in-group and out-group produce high prestige; negatively
discrepant comparisons between in-group and out-group
result in low prestige.
3. When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will
strive either to leave their existing group or join some
more positively distinct group and/or to make their
existing group more positively distinct.
What is wrong?
Variables of the explanandum do not appear in
the explanans. This is impossible.
Does not appear in explanans
This is hidden in “comparison”
between groups
31. Both must actually be required to logically derive the explanandum.
Condition 2
AT
The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least
one singular statement
Condition 2
32. In East Germany there was political discontent and it had a
positive effect on participation in political protest
Example:
Opp and Gern’s explanation of the protests in Eastern Germany
AT
Condition 2
What he wants to explain
What he uses to explain this…
33. explanans
explanandum
The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least
one singular statement
Condition 2
This argument is not based on a general law. The prediction is
induced from observations of other protests, an endeavor that is
impossible without a (implicit) law.
AT
34. Compare this and condition 2 to Popper’s (p 32) “determining
whether it [the theory] has the character of an empirical or
scientific theory” and (p.40) “a system [is] empirical or scientific
only if it is capable of being tested by experience”
!
(Second line “along which the testing of theories could be carried
out” – out of four)
Condition 3
AT
Condition 3
The explanans must have empirical content.
35. AT
Condition 3
The explanans must have empirical content.
In other words, our theories must be testable. It must be possible to
derive at least one testable statement from the theory.
The most straightforward way to make a theory testable is to find a
way to measure the variables in its premises (e.g. X and Y in “all X are
Y”) and investigate whether there is the proposed relationship.
This would mean that you directly test the assumptions of the theory.
BUT…
The concept is latent in the sense that it can not be observed directly
Social scientific theories often include concepts which are very
difficult to measure for two reasons:
A
B
The concept is not defined properly
36. How to define a concept?
Two kinds of definitions:
A definition is a passage that explains the meaning of a concept which is to be
obscure (called definiendum), by the use of terms with a clear meaning (called
definiens).
Specifies all necessary and sufficient conditions for an object to be considered
a member of a set
e.g.: “A sociologist is a scientist who studies human societies.”
Intensional definitions:
Lists all members of a set
e.g.: “Sociologists are Durkheim, Marx, Weber, and Parsons. This is a complete list.”
Extensional definitions:
AT
37. Common problems with definitions
e.g.: define the concept sociologist:
“A sociologist is a scientist who studies sociology.”
define the concept sociology:
“Sociology is what sociologists do”
Circular definitions:
e.g. define the concept sociologist:
“A sociologist is a scientist who studies social facts”
the concept “social fact” needs to be defined too.
Definiens is obscure:
e.g. define the concept sociologist:
“Scientists like Emile Durkheim are sociologists”
Durkheim was male, French, and well dressed.
Thus, “the inspector” from “Pink Panther” is a sociologist too
Definition based on examples and counter examples:
AT
38. Example: the definition of “social identity”
This is the definition of “social identity”:
This definition suggests that all humans have a “self-image” and that a
human’s self-image is influenced by multiple characteristics (categories).
!
The part of the “self-image” that is based on social categories to which the
individual perceives himself as belonging is called “social identity.”
a) What is a “self-image”?
b) What are “social categories”?
c) When does an individual “perceive to belong to” a social category
Open questions:
AT
It consists, for the purpose of the present discussion, of
those aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from
the social categories to which he perceives himself as
belonging.
39. AT
Self-image might refer to:
!
An individual’s description of herself (I am a female farmer), or
Her evaluation of herself (I hate myself), or both.
What is a “self-image”?
Unfortunately, this is not clear.
Tajfel and Turner refer to the self-image also as the “self-concept” and hold
that individual’s seek to achieve a “positive self-concept”.
However,
This suggests that self-image refers to evaluations.
Thus, we might define “self-image” as an individual’s evaluation of herself
40. AT
“social-identity” refers to the part of an individual’s self-evaluation which
is based on social categories to which the individual feels to belong.
!
It is still left open what a defines a category as “social”…
What is a “self-image”?
This implies that
The process of clarifying the meaning of a concept is called “explication”
41. AT
Opinions, preferences, motives, perceptions, personality traits, utility
and fears cannot be directly measured.
!
Also an individual’s social identity is not observable.
NO!!!
For instance,
Another big problem is that many concepts
of our theories are not directly observable
Does this imply that theories which contain such concepts do not have
empirical content?
42. AT
Individuals have a negative social identity when groups to which they feel to
belong have a low status (antecedent).
!
Plus, when social identity is negative, then individuals tend to act aggressively
towards out-groups (consequence).
Many concepts may not be directly observable,
but their antecedents and consequences may be.
Thus, statements that include latent variables can be tested indirectly.
For instance, Social Identity Theory (SIT) holds that:
Group status and aggressive behavior can be measured and, thus,
allow to derive (indirectly) testable statements from SIT.
43. AT
Indirect tests are standard also in the natural sciences:
For instance, the temperature of an object is defined as the “speed of the
particles that an object contains”.
!
Thus, let us measure the body temperature of a human.
!
Can we measure the “speed of the particles the body contains”?
!
No. Instead, we measure the volume of objects that are near to the body
and have the same temperature, using (mercury) thermometers.
44. AT
In sum, also theories which contain unclear concepts and
concepts which are not directly observable have empirical
content. However, this requires additional assumptions and
operationalization.
45. AT
The third condition of adequacy holds that we want empirical
content. However, we want a lot of empirical content.
The empirical content of a statement is the higher the more
possible states there are which would falsify the statement.
Empirical content scale
Minimal
empirical
content
Maximal
empirical
content
statements which are
always true (tautological)
statements which are always
false (contradictory)
"All bachelors are not married." "James is a vegetarian and eats steaks."
46. AT
Statements should have a high informational content.
However, informational content should not be maximal.
47. AT
Empirical content of implications
For example, which of the following statements has a higher empirical content?
If a person is frustrated and hurt then she will be aggressive.
A
B
If a person is frustrated or hurt then she will be aggressive.
The empirical content of a statement is the higher the more
possible states there are which would falsify the statement.
Thus, we need to study under which conditions the statements are false.
48. AT
A If a person is frustrated or hurt then she will be aggressive.
There are three possible states
where the if-part is true
p q p
1 1 1
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
This is a disjunction
A and B are implications, statements which are false
when the if-part is true and the then-part is false.
49. AT
If a person is frustrated and hurt then she will be aggressive.B
There is only one possible
state where the if-part is true
This is a conjunction
A and B are implications, statements which are false
when the if-part is true and the then-part is false.
p q p
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
50. AT
Empirical content of implications
Second example, which of the following statements has a higher empirical content?
If a person is frustrated then she will be aggressive and sad.
C
D
If a person is frustrated then she will be aggressive or sad.
The empirical content of a statement is the higher the more
possible states there are which would falsify the statement.
51. AT
There is one possible state
where the if-part is false
p q p
1 1 1
1 0 1
0 1 1
0 0 0
This is a disjunction
A and B are implications, statements which are false
when the if-part is true and the then-part is false.
C If a person is frustrated then she will be aggressive or sad.
52. AT
There is only one possible
state where the if-part is true
A and B are implications, statements which are false
when the if-part is true and the then-part is false.
If a person is frustrated then she will be aggressive and sad.D
This is a conjunction
p q p
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
53. AT
In sum, the empirical content of a statement is higher if
there are more possible states that would falsify it.
54. AT
More possible states when if-
part contains disjunction than
conjunction
Implications are false when if-part is true and the then-part is false
More possible states when
then-part contains conjunction
than disjunction
The empirical content of an implication is higher when the if-part
contains a disjunction and when the then-part contains a conjunction.
55. AT
Example:
The empirical content of social identity theory
This is the core claim of SIT:
We have just seen that it makes a big difference whether there is
an “and” or an “or”. This is a not a strong formulation of a theory.
Note that the theory implies only “or” in the “then-
part”, the alternative with less empirical content.
3. When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will strive either
to leave their existing group or join some more positively distinct
group and/or to make their existing group more positively distinct.
56. AT
Relation between humans
Social relations
Friendships
Friendships between students
Friendships between first-years
Abstract & Generalize
Specify - Classify
We can define concepts with different generality:
e.g. define the concept: “network tie”
Empirical content and generality of concepts
57. dyads
Relation between
humans
Social relations
Friendships
Friendships between
students
Friendships
between
first-years
Specify:
Generalize:
Include more characteristics in
the definition of the concept
Fewer objects fall under the
concept
Abstract more details
More objects fall under the
concept
AT
58. AT
S=df. Everybody with at
least a Doctor’s degree
in Sociology
S=df. Everybody with a
university degree in
Sociology
G=df. Everybody who
can interpret a regression
G=df. Everybody who
can explain what a
regression is
1
2
4
3
Comparing empirical content of implications
All sociologists (S) are good statisticians (G). [all S is G]
4 (3) has more empirical content than 2 (1)
4 (2) has more empirical content than 3 (1)
59. think about how “condition 4” relates to what Popper (reading this
week) is saying about the difference of “verifiability” and
“falsifiability” as criteria for good theories! (pp. 40)
Condition 4
AT
Condition 4
All statements of the explanans must be true.
60. AT
The theory of rational action
is a good example of a wrong theory
Oskar Morgenstern
1902-1977
Austrian economist
co-founder of Game Theory
John von Neumann
1903-1957
Hungarian mathematician
co-founder of Game Theory
61. AT
The theory of rational action
is a good example of a wrong theory
A core assumption of RCT is that individuals maximize utility
Von Neuman and Morgenstern showed that expected utility
maximization is based on the following assumptions. Thus when you
assume this decision rule, then you implicitly also assume the following:
Completeness:
Transitivity:
for any two lotteries A and B, either A≥B, A=B, or A≤B
Continuity:
Transitivity:
if A≥B, and B≥C, then A≥C
if A≤B≤C, then there is a probability p between 0 and
1 such that lottery pA+(1-p)C is equally preferred to B
if A=B, then pA+(1-p)X= pB+(1-p)X
62. AT
A famous experiment:
Daniel Kahnemann
1934
Israeli psychologist
2002: Nobel price in economics
Amos Tversky
1937-1996
Israeli psychologist
Coauthor of Kahnemann
63. AT
Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian
disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs
to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact
scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows:
A famous experiment:
Condition 1:
If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600
people will be saved and a two-third probability that no people will be
saved.
A
B
If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved
72% of the subjects chose A (N=152)
Which of the two programs would you favor?
64. AT
Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian
disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs
to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact
scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows
A famous experiment:
Condition 2:
If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody
will die and a two-third probability that 600 people will die.
C
D
If program C is adopted, 400 people will die
78% of the subjects chose D (N=155)
Which of the two programs would you favor?
65. AT
The decision problems are identical. Still, the different framing
(save lives vs. loose them) of the effects leads to different decisions.
A famous experiment:
Kahnemann and Tversky concluded that “there is more risk
seeking in the second version of the problem than there is risk
aversion in the first.” (Kahnemann & Tversky 2000: p.5 )
66. AT
The framing effect Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated contradicts
the idea that humans form decisions based on utility maximization.
Their results contradict the assumption of completeness. In other
words, the theory of rational action is wrong.
!
According to the fourth condition of adequacy, explanations which
assume utility maximization are not adequate.
Thus, should we abandon the theory of rational action?
Yes, we should if we had a better theory of action. “Better” on all
accounts that matter: fertility, simplicity, surprise.
67. AT
As long as we do not have a better theory, we will have to elaborate
the theory of rational action.
Different decision rules (bounded rationality)
Social preferences (fairness)
Include further assumptions about the perception of risks
Current research focuses on elaborating the theory of rational action:
