Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T11:28:49.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some empirical qualifications to the arguments for an argumentative theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Christopher R. Wolfe
Christopher R. Wolfe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. WolfeCR@muohio.eduhttp://think.psy.muohio.edu/home/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The empirical research on the psychology of argumentation suggests that people are prone to fallacies and suboptimal performance in generating, comprehending, and evaluating arguments. Reasoning and argumentation are interrelated skills that use many of the same cognitive processes. The processes we use to convince others are also used to convince ourselves. Argumentation would be ineffective if we couldn't reason for ourselves.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 92 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baron, J. (1995) Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking & Reasoning 1:221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, A. S., Reese, C. M., Persky, H. R. & Carr, P. (1996) NAEP 1994 U.S. History Report Card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. U. S. Department of Education. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=96085.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A. & Kurby, C. A. (2005) Detecting incoherent informal arguments. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. & Wolfe, C. R. (2005) Memory for claims of simple arguments. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S. & Wolfe, C. R. (2008) I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes 45:52–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. A. (2003) Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language 48:794–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R. & Mazzeo, J. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1999) NAEP 1998 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. U. S. Department of Education. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999462.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2001) How do people know? Psychological Sciences 12:1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, M., Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. A. (2004) Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology 25:205–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Means, M. L. & Voss, J. F. (1996) Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction 14:139–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D. N., Allen, R. & Hafner, J. (1983) Difficulties in everyday reasoning. In: Thinking: The expanding frontier, ed. Maxwell, W. pp. 177–89. Franklin Institute Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M. & Bushey, B. (1991) Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In Informal reasoning, ed. Voss, J., Perkins, D. N. & Segal, J. pp. 83–105. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Toplak, M. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (2003) Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:851–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss, J. F. & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001) Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes 32:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C. R., Albrecht, M. J. & Britt, M. A. (2007) Any reason is better than none: Implausible reasons in argumentation. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Long Beach, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. & Boone, W. J. (under review) Individual differences in the “MySide bias” in reasoning and argumentation.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2005) The use of other side information: Explaining the myside bias in argumentation. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2008) Locus of the my-side bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning 14(1):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2009) Individual differences in the “myside bias” in reasoning and argumentation. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A. & Butler, J. A. (2009a) Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication 26:183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., Petrovic, M., Albrecht, M. & Kopp, K. (2009b) The efficacy of a Web-based counterargument tutor. Behavior Research Methods 41:691–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed