Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:22:20.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the design and function of rational arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

John E. Opfer  and
Vladimir Sloutsky
John E. Opfer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. opfer.7@osu.eduhttp://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/opfer/opfer/opfer.htmlsloutsky@psy.ohio-state.eduhttp://cogdev.cog.ohio-state.edu
Vladimir Sloutsky
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. opfer.7@osu.eduhttp://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/opfer/opfer/opfer.htmlsloutsky@psy.ohio-state.eduhttp://cogdev.cog.ohio-state.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is unclear how an argumentative environment would select for better reasoning given three general findings. First, argument rationality typically fails to persuade poor reasoners. Second, reasoned argumentation competes with more persuasive and less rational arguments for limited cognitive resources. Third, those poor at reasoning fail to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. Reasoning, therefore, is poorly designed for argument.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 85 - 86
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

Ames, G. J. & Murray, F. B. (1982) When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology 18:894–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrouillet, P., Grosset, N. & Lecas, J.-F. (2000) Conditional reasoning by mental models: Chronometric and developmental evidence. Cognition 75:237–66.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & O'Brien, D. P. (1998) Mental logic. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., Newstead, S. E. & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993) Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jaswal, V. K. & Neely, L. A. (2006) Adults don't always know best: Preschoolers use past reliability over age when learning new words. Psychological Science 17:757–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenig, M. A., Clement, F. & Harris, P. L. (2004) Trust in testimony: Children's use of true and false statements. Psychological Science 15:694–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, I. & Druyan, S. (1993) When sociocognitive transaction among peers fails: The case of misconceptions in science. Child Development 64(5):1571–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(11):2098–109.Google Scholar
Morris, B. & Hasson, U. (2010) Multiple sources of competence underlying the comprehension of inconsistencies: A developmental investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36:277–87.Google ScholarPubMed
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996) Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Westview Press.Google Scholar