Naturalistic Fallacy Errors in Lay Interpretations of Psychological Science: Data and Reflections on the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) Controversy

Abstract

The naturalistic fallacy (NF) refers to "is-ought" confusions in which empirical descriptions of nature are seen as dictating moral conclusions. Are brief warnings sufficient to prevent such unwarranted inferences among lay consumers of psychological research? Undergraduates read 2 fictitious news reports, 1 of which summarized a meta-analysis on the effects of childhood sexual abuse (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998). Students endorsed as "true according to the research" nearly half of the set of NF test statements that asserted moral claims. Including a caution against NF errors had no reliable effect on responses to the sex abuse report; a caution temporarily reduced, but did not eliminate, such errors for an alternative research topic. Additional measures indicated that students-especially those under high cognitive load-perceived the moral views of the researchers as mirroring those of writers citing their work. Implications for recent debates regarding psychological research and public perceptions are discussed.