Cognitive "Category-Based Induction" research and social "Persuasion" research are each about what makes arguments believable: A Tale of two Literatures

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 115-122

  Ranganath, Kate A ^a   Spellman, Barbara A ^b   Joy Gaba, Jennifer A ^b  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Argument; Believability; Induction; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 79251503205     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691610361604     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1032-1043.
2. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Morris, K.J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
3. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428-433.
4. Evans, J.St.B.T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-78.
5. Evans, J.St.B.T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382-389.
6. Feeney, A. (2007). How many processes underlie category-based induction? Effects of conclusion specificity and cognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1830-1839.
7. Feeney, A., Shafto, P., & Dunning, D. (2007). Who is susceptible to conjunction fallacies in category-based induction? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 884-889.
8. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision-making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
9. Harkins, S.G., & Petty, R.E. (1981a). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 401-413.
10. Harkins, S.G., & Petty, R.E. (1981b). The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 627-635.
11. Harkins, S.G., & Petty, R.E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260-268.
12. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J.B. (2009). Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 116, 20-58.
14. López, A. (1995). The diversity principle in the testing of arguments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 374-382.
15. López, A., Atran, S., Coley, J.D., Medin, D.L., & Smith, E.E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 251-295.
16. Maines, L.A. (1990). The effect of forecast redundancy on judgments of a consensus forecast's expected accuracy. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 29-47.
17. Medin, D.L., Coley, J.D., Storms, G., & Hayes, B.K. (2003). A relevance theory of induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 517-532.
18. Nisbett, R.E., Krantz, D.H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339-363.
19. Osherson, D.N., Wilkie, O., Smith, E.E., López, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200.
20. Petty, R.E., & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to metacognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137-147.
21. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
22. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
23. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinate of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
24. Petty, R.E., Wheeler, C., & Tormala, Z.L. (2003). Persuasion and attitude change. In T. Mellon & M.J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (pp. 353-382). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
25. Priester, J.R., & Petty, R.E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 408-421.
26. Proffitt, J.B., Coley, J.D., & Medin, D.L. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 811-828.
27. Schul, Y., Burnstein, E., & Bardi, A. (1995). Dealing with deceptions that are difficult to detect: Encoding and judgment as a function of preparing to review invalid information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 228-253.
28. Shafto, P., Coley, J.D., & Baldwin, B. (2007). Effects of time pressure on context-sensitive property induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 890-894.
29. Smith, E.R., &De Coster, J. (2000). Dual processmodels in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlyingmemory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108-131.
30. Soll, J.B. (1999). Intuitive theories of information: Beliefs about the value of redundancy. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 317-346.
31. Spellman, B.A., López, A., & Smith, E.E. (1999). Hypothesis testing: Strategy selection for generalizing versus limiting hypotheses. Thinking & Reasoning, 5, 67-91.
32. Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.
33. Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726.
34. Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T.L., & Kemp, C. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 311-318.
35. Tenenbaum, J.B., Kemp, C., & Shafto, P. (2007). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive reasoning. In A. Feeney & E. Heit (Eds.), Inductive reasoning (pp. 114-136). London: Cambridge University Press.
36. Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
37. Woo, S.E., Harms, P.D., & Kuncel, N.R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1635-1639.
38. Yoon, C., Lee, M.P., & Danziger, S. (2007). The effects of optimal time of day on persuasion processes in older adults. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 475-495.