The document argues that psychological hypotheses should first be evaluated for validity through logical reasoning before conducting research. It critiques the 'actor-observer effect' hypothesis by Jones & Nisbett for assuming fixed attribution categories and presents counterarguments demonstrating the possibility of multiple attributions. The author emphasizes that flawed hypotheses are a liability and suggests that logical analysis should precede empirical research.

1. Proving Psychological Hypotheses through Logic
Illogical hypotheses are liabilities even in their assumption stage
- Thesigan Nadarajan
Psychology and Logic
I have a question to pose to psychologists. Is it possible to prove
validity or non-validity of psychological hypotheses by logic and logical
arguments? Now, the traditional psychologist would say that after the
formulation of a hypothesis, qualitative or quantitative research must be
used to support it. I choose to disagree. As an eclectic thinker, I propose
that logic and logical argument be utilized first to prove the validity or
non-validity of a hypothesis. It is only after that, the necessary research
should be done as complementary proof.
To prove my point, I would like to demonstrate using the
psychological hypothesis of, “Actor Observer Effect,” proposed by Jones &
Nisbett (1971). Jones & Nisbett hypothesized that
“Actors tend to attribute the causes of their behaviour to stimuli
inherent in the situation, while observers tend to attribute
behaviour to stable dispositions of the actor”
The above hypothesis assumes that the attribution of behaviour is a
fixed tendency (two possibilities), with actors attributing behaviour to
stimuli inherent in situations and observers attributing behaviour to stable
dispositions of the actor. Take note, the assumption is that attribution is
fixed. I consider this assumption of fixed attribution (two only) as a flaw
in Jones & Nisbett hypothesis. I propose that the attributions can be
interchangeable and multiple in nature. Let me prove the fallacy of fixed
attribution. Let’s begin by symbolizing the hypothesis.
(Step 1) Symbolizing the Hypothesis
Let’s use the following symbolic code to symbolize the hypothesis
for analysis.
A = “Actors tend to attribute the causes of their behaviour to,”
S = “stimuli inherent in the situation,”

2. O = “Observers tend to attribute behaviour to,”
D = “stable dispositions of the actor,”
. = “While (and)”
E = “Actor Observer Effect”
Having symbolized the hypothesis, let us now draw-up the symbolic
formula.
(Step 2) Symbolic Formula of the Hypothesis
The formula can be stated as:
[(A.S).(O.D)]
The English interpretation of the above formula is,
Actors tend to attribute the causes of their behaviour to
stimuli inherent in the situation, while observers tend to
attribute behaviour to stable dispositions of the actor
Next, I would like to prove Jones & Nisbett argument as flawed.
(Step 3) Actor Observer Effect Hypothesis: Arguments and
Counter arguments
Jones & Nisbett Argument
Jones & Nisbett single step argument can be described in the
following manner.
[(A.S).(O.D)]
E
Counter Argument:
Deductively speaking, in order for Jones & Nisbett’s argument to be
valid, all of its premises and its conclusions must be true.

3. p q
p
___
/∴ q
If either is proven doubtful or untrue, then, their argument is not
valid.
p q
~p
___
/∴ ~q
Jones & Nisbett have committed the fallacy of “False Argument” in
assuming that their hypothesis is exclusive without the possibility of
alternate premises and conclusions. Let me prove it.
Why didn’t they show other premise combinations of (A.S).(O.D)]?
For example, the other possibilities are:
1. [(A.D).(O.S)]
2. [(A. (D V S)]
3. [(O. (D V S)]
If we were to interpret in English, the other possibility goes like
these:
1. Actors can attribute the causes of their behaviour to their stable
dispositions, and observers can attribute their behaviour to
stimuli inherent in the situation.
2. Actors can attribute the causes of their behaviour to their stable
dispositions, or to stimuli inherent in the situation.
3. Observers can attribute the causes of their behaviour to their
stable dispositions, or to stimuli inherent in the situation.
I can therefore present my counter argument diagrammatically as
follows:

4. [(A.D).(O.S)] [(A. (D V S)] [(O. (D V S)]
_________________________________________
[(A.S).(O.D)]
E
By excluding all the above possibilities, they have bias their
research and findings, by arbitrarily focusing only on proving [(A.S).
(O.D)]. Therefore, both their premises and conclusion is faulty. My logical
argument against the fixed (two) attribution differentiation is also
supported by current researches like Hilton (2006) and Knobe & Nelson
(2007) that shows other attribution possibilities.
When a hypothesis does not even stand-up to a logical argument,
what is the use of researching for support to scaffold it? Illogical
hypotheses are liabilities even in their assumption stage. The logical
analysis of hypotheses should always come first before the beginning of
any research.