Arguments About Regulating Or Not Regulating Various Aspects

For this Discussion, select one of the following controversial issues: 1. Cause of autism 2. Use of hypnosis in therapy 3. Validity of eyewitness testimony 4. Legalizing same-sex marriage Search the Internet and find two news or other articles that defend different positions on the issue you chose.

Be sure to include the URL for each article as a reference, using the appropriate APA format in the citation. With these thoughts in mind: Post by Day 4 a brief description of the controversial topic in psychology you selected and the different position articles you chose. Between the two articles, identify a minimum of three common errors and/or fallacies. Evaluate the impact of the errors/fallacies you selected on the psychology profession and on public perception, behavior, and/or attitudes. Explain how you would re-think, re-write, or address the errors/fallacies you selected. -->-->

Arguments About Regulating Or Not Regulating Various Aspects Of Human

Controversies in psychology often revolve around whether certain aspects of human behavior and biological phenomena should be regulated, restricted, or accepted outright. These debates reflect broader societal tensions about ethics, scientific interpretations, and social implications. The selected issue for this analysis is the validity of eyewitness testimony, a contentious topic with significant consequences for the legal system and psychological research. Two articles presenting opposing viewpoints were chosen: one advocating for the reliance on eyewitness accounts in criminal justice, and the other highlighting the unreliability and fallibility of such testimonies.

The first article, titled "The Power of Eyewitness Testimony," argues that eyewitness accounts are critical for solving crimes and delivering justice, citing cases where eyewitness identification led to successful convictions. Its position emphasizes the importance of memory accuracy and the role of eyewitnesses in the judicial process. Conversely, the second article, "The Flaws of Eyewitness Evidence," contends that eyewitness reliability is compromised by factors such as stress, suggestibility, and misidentification, often leading to wrongful convictions. It underscores research demonstrating that human memory is reconstructive and susceptible to distortion.

Between these two articles, three common errors or fallacies are evident: confirmation bias, oversimplification, and false dichotomy. Confirmation bias occurs when authors selectively present evidence supporting their stance while disregarding contrary data. Both articles tend to emphasize examples that bolster their arguments, ignoring studies that may complicate their claims. Oversimplification is observed in the portrayal of eyewitness testimony as either entirely reliable or entirely flawed, neglecting the nuance that some eyewitness accounts may be accurate under certain conditions. Lastly, a false dichotomy appears in framing the debate as a choice between complete reliance or outright rejection of eyewitness evidence, ignoring middle-ground approaches such as improved procedures to enhance accuracy.

The impact of these fallacies on the psychology profession is profound, as they influence how researchers and practitioners interpret evidence and develop policies. Overconfidence in eyewitness testimony's reliability may lead to overly permissive legal standards, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions. Conversely, overemphasizing its fallibility could undermine public trust in eyewitness evidence altogether. For the public, these fallacies shape attitudes toward criminal justice, potentially affecting jury decisions, legal reforms, and societal perceptions of fairness. Addressing these errors involves promoting a more nuanced understanding of eyewitness reliability, advocating for standardized procedures like lineup protocols, and encouraging critical appraisal of research evidence.

References

• Garry, M., & Cutler, B. (2021). The reliability of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Legal Psychology, 45(2), 101-117.
• Read, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2020). The flaws of eyewitness evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 123-142.