Skip Nav

Deduction & Induction

What Is Systematic Observation in Psychology?

❶Given that "if A is true then that would cause B , C , and D to be true", an example of deduction would be " A is true therefore we can deduce that B , C , and D are true".

Other Logic Terms

What Is the Difference Between Inductive Vs. Deductive Reasoning?
Inductive Approaches and Some Examples
What Is the Difference Between Inductive and Deductive Logic?

At this stage, the researcher looks for patterns in the data, working to develop a theory that could explain those patterns. Thus when researchers take an inductive approach, they start with a set of observations and then they move from those particular experiences to a more general set of propositions about those experiences.

In other words, they move from data to theory, or from the specific to the general. More than just a punctuation mark: How boys and young men learn about menstruation.

Journal of Family Issues, 32 , — To understand this process, Allen and her colleagues analyzed the written narratives of 23 young men in which the men described how they learned about menstruation, what they thought of it when they first learned about it, and what they think of it now.

Enhancing empowerment and leadership among homeless youth in agency and community settings: A grounded theory approach. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28 , 1— The authors analyzed data from focus groups with 20 young people at a homeless shelter.

From these data they developed a set of recommendations for those interested in applied interventions that serve homeless youth. The researchers also developed hypotheses for people who might wish to conduct further investigation of the topic.

Though Ferguson and her colleagues did not test the hypotheses that they developed from their analysis, their study ends where most deductive investigations begin: Researchers taking a deductive approach Develop hypotheses based on some theory or theories, collect data that can be used to test the hypotheses, and assess whether the data collected support the hypotheses.

They start with a social theory that they find compelling and then test its implications with data. That is, they move from a more general level to a more specific one. A deductive approach to research is the one that people typically associate with scientific investigation. The researcher studies what others have done, reads existing theories of whatever phenomenon he or she is studying, and then tests hypotheses that emerge from those theories.

While not all researchers follow a deductive approach, as you have seen in the preceding discussion, many do, and there are a number of excellent recent examples of deductive research. Contemporary hate crimes, law enforcement, and the legacy of racial violence.

American Sociological Review, 74 , — The authors developed their hypothesis from their reading of prior research and theories on the topic. Overall, the authors found support for their hypothesis. Classroom learning environments and the mental health of first grade children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52 , 4— Based on prior research and theory, Milkie and Warner hypothesized that negative classroom features, such as a lack of basic supplies and even heat, would be associated with emotional and behavioral problems in children.

While inductive and deductive approaches to research seem quite different, they can actually be rather complementary. In some cases, researchers will plan for their research to include multiple components, one inductive and the other deductive. In other cases, a researcher might begin a study with the plan to only conduct either inductive or deductive research, but then he or she discovers along the way that the other approach is needed to help illuminate findings.

Here is an example of each such case. In the case of my collaborative research on sexual harassment, we began the study knowing that we would like to take both a deductive and an inductive approach in our work. We therefore administered a quantitative survey, the responses to which we could analyze in order to test hypotheses, and also conducted qualitative interviews with a number of the survey participants.

What Is Systematic Observation in Psychology? What Is the Victim Precipitation Theory? Full Answer Inductive reasoning is common among the social sciences whereas deductive research is more common in the natural sciences.

Learn more about Psychology. What Is the Child-Centered Approach? The child-centered approach is an application within the field of child development that allows the child to make their own choices and establish their own You May Also Like Q: Why Is Science Important? The principle of induction, as applied to causation, says that, if A has been found very often accompanied or followed by B , then it is probable that on the next occasion on which A is observed, it will be accompanied or followed by B.

If the principle is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must make the probability not far short of certainty. If this principle, or any other from which it can be deduced, is true, then the casual inferences which Hume rejects are valid, not indeed as giving certainty, but as giving a sufficient probability for practical purposes.

If this principle is not true, every attempt to arrive at general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious, and Hume's skepticism is inescapable for an empiricist. The principle itself cannot, of course, without circularity, be inferred from observed uniformities, since it is required to justify any such inference. It must therefore be, or be deduced from, an independent principle not based on experience.

To this extent, Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science. But if this one principle is admitted, everything else can proceed in accordance with the theory that all our knowledge is based on experience. It must be granted that this is a serious departure from pure empiricism, and that those who are not empiricists may ask why, if one departure is allowed, others are forbidden. These, however, are not questions directly raised by Hume's arguments.

What these arguments prove—and I do not think the proof can be controverted—is that the induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle, science is impossible".

In a paper, Gilbert Harman explained that enumerative induction is not an autonomous phenomenon, but is simply a masked consequence of inference to the best explanation IBE. Inductive reasoning has been criticized by thinkers as far back as Sextus Empiricus. Although the use of inductive reasoning demonstrates considerable success, its application has been questionable. Recognizing this, Hume highlighted the fact that our mind draws uncertain conclusions from relatively limited experiences.

In deduction, the truth value of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premise. In induction, however, the dependence on the premise is always uncertain. As an example, let's assume "all ravens are black. However, the assumption becomes inconsistent with the fact that there are white ravens.

Therefore, the general rule of "all ravens are black" is inconsistent with the existence of the white raven. Hume further argued that it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning: Since this is circular he concluded that our use of induction is unjustifiable with the help of Hume's Fork.

However, Hume then stated that even if induction were proved unreliable, we would still have to rely on it. So instead of a position of severe skepticism , Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense , where the inevitability of induction is accepted.

It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure". By now, inductive inference has been shown to exist, but is found rarely, as in programs of machine learning in Artificial Intelligence AI.

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on current knowledge and predictions. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic , confirmation bias , and the predictable-world bias. The availability heuristic causes the reasoner to depend primarily upon information that is readily available to them.

People have a tendency to rely on information that is easily accessible in the world around them. For example, in surveys, when people are asked to estimate the percentage of people who died from various causes, most respondents would choose the causes that have been most prevalent in the media such as terrorism, and murders, and airplane accidents rather than causes such as disease and traffic accidents, which have been technically "less accessible" to the individual since they are not emphasized as heavily in the world around them.

The confirmation bias is based on the natural tendency to confirm rather than to deny a current hypothesis. Research has demonstrated that people are inclined to seek solutions to problems that are more consistent with known hypotheses rather than attempt to refute those hypotheses. Often, in experiments, subjects will ask questions that seek answers that fit established hypotheses, thus confirming these hypotheses. For example, if it is hypothesized that Sally is a sociable individual, subjects will naturally seek to confirm the premise by asking questions that would produce answers confirming that Sally is in fact a sociable individual.

The predictable-world bias revolves around the inclination to perceive order where it has not been proved to exist, either at all or at a particular level of abstraction. Gambling, for example, is one of the most popular examples of predictable-world bias. Gamblers often begin to think that they see simple and obvious patterns in the outcomes and, therefore, believe that they are able to predict outcomes based upon what they have witnessed.

In reality, however, the outcomes of these games are difficult to predict and highly complex in nature. However, in general, people tend to seek some type of simplistic order to explain or justify their beliefs and experiences, and it is often difficult for them to realise that their perceptions of order may be entirely different from the truth.

A generalization more accurately, an inductive generalization proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population. There are 20 balls—either black or white—in an urn. To estimate their respective numbers, you draw a sample of four balls and find that three are black and one is white. A good inductive generalization would be that there are 15 black and five white balls in the urn. How much the premises support the conclusion depends upon a the number in the sample group, b the number in the population, and c the degree to which the sample represents the population which may be achieved by taking a random sample.

The hasty generalization and the biased sample are generalization fallacies. Two dicto simpliciter fallacies can occur in statistical syllogisms: Simple induction proceeds from a premise about a sample group to a conclusion about another individual. This is a combination of a generalization and a statistical syllogism, where the conclusion of the generalization is also the first premise of the statistical syllogism. The basic form of inductive inference , simply induction , reasons from particular instances to all instances, and is thus an unrestricted generalization.

As this reasoning form 's premises, even if true, do not entail the conclusion's truth, this is a form of inductive inference. The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false. Questions regarding the justification and form of enumerative inductions have been central in philosophy of science , as enumerative induction has a pivotal role in the traditional model of the scientific method.

The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property: Analogical reasoning is very frequent in common sense , science , philosophy and the humanities , but sometimes it is accepted only as an auxiliary method.

A refined approach is case-based reasoning. A causal inference draws a conclusion about a causal connection based on the conditions of the occurrence of an effect. Premises about the correlation of two things can indicate a causal relationship between them, but additional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact form of the causal relationship. As a logic of induction rather than a theory of belief, Bayesian inference does not determine which beliefs are a priori rational, but rather determines how we should rationally change the beliefs we have when presented with evidence.

We begin by committing to a prior probability for a hypothesis based on logic or previous experience, and when faced with evidence, we adjust the strength of our belief in that hypothesis in a precise manner using Bayesian logic.

Around , Ray Solomonoff founded the theory of universal inductive inference , the theory of prediction based on observations; for example, predicting the next symbol based upon a given series of symbols.

This is a formal inductive framework that combines algorithmic information theory with the Bayesian framework. Universal inductive inference is based on solid philosophical foundations, [31] and can be considered as a mathematically formalized Occam's razor. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity.

Deductive Approaches and Some Examples

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach.

Privacy FAQs

The main difference between inductive and deductive approaches to research is that whilst a deductive approach is aimed and testing theory, an inductive approach is concerned with the generation of new theory emerging from the data.

About Our Ads

While inductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, it is not without its weaknesses. For example, it is not always logically valid to assume that a general principle is correct simply because it is supported by a limited number of cases. An inductive research approach is one that begins with the final stages of scientific research, typically observation, and works backward to form a hypothesis. It is the opposite of deductive research.

Cookie Info

Inductive approach, also known in inductive reasoning, starts with the observations and theories are proposed towards the end of the research process as a result of observations[1]. Inductive research “involves the search for pattern from observation and the development of explanations. Inductive definition is - leading on: inducing. How to use inductive in a sentence. Wireless, or inductive, charging is the next frontier for hybrid and electric vehicles that one day will charge in much the way your new toothbrush or cellphone does.