Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Examining the influence of anecdotal stories and the interplay of individual differences on reasoning.Fernando Rodriguez, Rebecca E. Rhodes, Kevin F. Miller & Priti Shah - 2016 - Thinking and Reasoning 22 (3):274-296.
    ABSTRACTIn two experiments, we explored whether anecdotal stories influenced how individuals reasoned when evaluating scientific news articles. We additionally considered the role of education level and thinking dispositions on reasoning. Participants evaluated eight scientific news articles that drew questionable interpretations from the evidence. Overall, anecdotal stories decreased the ability to reason scientifically even when controlling for education level and thinking dispositions. Additionally, we found that article length was related to participants' ratings of the news articles. Our study demonstrates that anecdotes (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation.Jos Hornikx & Ulrike Hahn - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):225 - 243.
    Although argumentation plays an essential role in our lives, there is no integrated area of research on the psychology of argumentation. Instead research on argumentation is conducted in a number of separate research communities that are spread across disciplines and have only limited interaction. With a view to bridging these different strands, we first distinguish between three meanings of the word ?argument?: argument as a reason, argument as a structured sequence of reasons and claims, and argument as a social exchange. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?Hans Hoeken, Rian Timmers & Peter Jan Schellens - 2012 - Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3):394 - 416.
    Argument quality has consistently been shown to have strong and lasting persuasive effects. The question is what criteria people use to distinguish strong from weak arguments and how these criteria relate to the ones proposed in normative argumentation theory. In an experiment 235 participants without training in argumentation theory rated the acceptance of 30 claims about the desirability of a consequence that were supported by either an argument from analogy, from authority, or from consequences. The supporting arguments were systematically manipulated (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople's criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones.Hans Hoeken, Ester Šorm & Peter Jan Schellens - 2014 - Thinking and Reasoning 20 (1):77-98.
    High-quality arguments have strong and lasting persuasive effects, suggesting that people can distinguish high- from low-quality arguments. However, we know little of what norms people employ to make that distinction. Some studies have shown that, in evaluating arguments from consequences, people are more sensitive to differences with respect to the desirability of these consequences than to differences in the likelihood that these consequences will occur. This raises the question of whether people lack the criteria to distinguish high-quality from low-quality arguments (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Traditional difference-score analyses of reasoning are flawed.Evan Heit & Caren M. Rotello - 2014 - Cognition 131 (1):75-91.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Getting to the source of the illusion of consensus.Saoirse Connor Desai, Belinda Xie & Brett K. Hayes - 2022 - Cognition 223 (C):105023.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation