The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 411-425

  Neuman, Yair ^a   Weinstock, Michael P ^a   Glasner, Amnon ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; APTITUDE; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; LOGIC; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; APTITUDE; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LOGIC; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS;

EID: 33645083747     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210500151436     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Akman, V., & Surav, M. (1996). The use of situation theory in context modeling. Computational Intelligence, 12, 1-13.
2. Baron, J. (1991). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221-235.
3. Brem, S. K., &c Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573-604.
4. Burgoon, M., Denning, V. P., & Roberts, L. (2002). Language expectancy theory. In J. P. Dillard &. M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 117-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Burke, P. (2002). Context in context. Common Knowledge, 8, 152-177.
6. Cherubini, P., Garnham, A., Oakhill, J., & Morley, E. (1998). Can any ostrich fly?: Some new data on belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. Cognition, 69, 179-218.
7. Copi, I. M., & Burgess-Jackson, K. (1996). Informal logic. Englewood Clio's, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Inc.
9. Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Evans, J. S. (1993). Bias and rationality. In K. I. Manktelow & D. E. Over (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives (pp. 6-30). London: Routledge.
11. Franks, B. A. (1997). Deductive reasoning with prose passages: Effects of age, inference form, prior knowledge, and reading skill. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 501-535.
12. Iwanska, L., & Zadrozny, W. (1997). Introduction to the special issue on context in natural language processing. Computational Intelligence, 13, 301-308.
13. Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Motivated reasoning: A depth-of-processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 358-371.
14. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, tradition, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375-384.
15. Klaczynski, P. A. (1997). Bias in adolescents' everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33, 273-283.
16. Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71, 1347-1366.
17. Klaczynski, P. A., & Gordon, D. H. (1996). Selfserving influences on adolescents' evaluations of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 317-339.
18. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
19. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills, Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
21. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
22. Levinson, S. C. (1997). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Markovits, H., & Vachon, R. (1989). Reasoning with contrary-to-fact propositions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 47, 398-412.
25. McCarthy, J. (1987). Generality in artificial intelligence. Communication of the ACM, 30, 1030-1035.
26. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among students of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
27. Neuman, Y. (2003). Go ahead prove that God does not exist! On student's ability to deal with fallacious arguments. Learning and Instruction, 13, 367-380.
28. Neuman, Y., Glassner, A., & Weinstock, M. (2004). The effect of a reason's truth-value on the judgment of a fallacious argument. Acta Psychologica, 116, 173-184.
29. Neuman, Y., & Weizman, E. (2003). The role of text representation in students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 849-865.
30. Oaksford, M., & Hahn, U. (2004). A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 75-85.
31. Perkins, D. N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping & D. C. Crowell (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 285-292.
33. Walton, D. N. (1987). Informal fallacies; Toward a theory of argument criticisms, Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
34. Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norm: Epistemological norms as predictors of students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 77-94.