Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 225-243

  Hornikx, Jos ^a   Hahn, Ulrike ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Argument quality; Argumentation; Fallacies; Persuasion; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862329409     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.674715     Document Type: Editorial

References (104)

1. Amgoud, L. and Cayrol, C. 2002. A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34: 197-215.
2. Bailenson, J. N. and Rips, L. J. 1996. Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10: S3-S16.
3. Beller, S., Bender, A. and Kuhnmünch, G. 2005. Understanding conditional promises and threats. Thinking & Reasoning, 11: 209-238.
4. Bench-Capon, T. and Dunne, P. 2007. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171: 619-641.
5. Bohner, G. and Schwarz, N. 1993. Mood states influence the production of persuasive arguments. Communication Research, 20: 696-722.
6. Bonnefon, J. F. 2009. A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage. Psychological Review, 116: 888-907.
7. Bonnefon, J. F. and Hilton, D. J. 2004. Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30: 28-37.
8. Bovens, L. and Hartmann, S. 2003. Bayesian epistemology, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. Brem, S., Russell, J. and Weems, L. 2001. Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32: 191-213.
10. Carenini, G. and Moore, J. D. 2006. Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 170: 925-952.
11. Christmann, U., Mischo, C. and Groeben, N. 2000. Components of the evaluation of integrity violations in argumentative discussions: Relevant factors and their relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19: 315-341.
12. Corner, A., Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2011. The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64: 153-170.
13. Craig, R. T. and Sanusi, A. L. 2000. 'I'm just saying.': Discourse markers of standpoint continuity. Argumentation, 14: 425-445.
14. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84: 287-312.
15. Dung, P. M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321-357.
16. Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes, Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
17. Evans, J. St. B. T. 2002. Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128: 978-996.
18. Godden, D. M. and Walton, D. 2007. Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic, 27: 267-292.
19. Govier, T. 2005. A practical study of argument, (6th ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
20. Green, N., Dwight, R., Navoraphan, K. and Stadler, B. 2011. Natural language generation of biomedical argumentation for lay audiences. Argument and Computation, 2: 23-50.
21. Grice, H. P. 1975. "Logic and conversation". In Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, Edited by: Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
22. Hahn, U., Harris, A. J. L. and Corner, A. J. 2009. Argument content and argument source: An exploration. Informal Logic, 29: 337-367.
23. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2006. A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese, 152: 207-236.
24. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2007a. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114: 704-732.
25. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2007b. The burden of proof and its role in argumentation. Argumentation, 21: 39-61.
26. Hahn, U. and Oaksford, M. 2012. "Rational argument". In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, Edited by: Holyoak, K. and Morrison, R. 277-300. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Hahn, U., Oaksford, M. and Harris, A. J. L. in press. Testimony and argument: A Bayesian perspective In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
28. Hample, D. and Dallinger, J. M. 2006. Individual differences in cognitive editing standards. Human Communication Research, 14: 123-144.
29. Harris, A. J. L., Hsu, A. S. and Madsen, J. K. 2012 this issue. Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 311-343.
30. Heit, E. and Rotello, C. M. 2010. Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36: 805-812.
31. Heit, E. and Rotello, C. M. 2012 this issue. The pervasive effects of argument length on inductive reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 244-277.
32. Hilton, D. 1995. The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118: 248-271.
33. Hoeken, H. and Hustinx, L. 2009. When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35: 491-510.
34. Hoeken, H., Timmers, R. and Schellens, P. J. 2012 this issue. Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument?. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 394-416.
35. Hornikx, J. 2008. Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: How good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence. Argumentation, 22: 555-569.
36. Hornikx, J. and de Best, J. 2011. Persuasive evidence in India: An investigation of the impact of evidence types and evidence quality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47: 246-257.
37. Hornikx, J. and Hoeken, H. 2007. Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74: 443-463.
38. Houtlosser, P. 1998. Points of view. Argumentation, 12: 387-405.
39. Howson, C. and Urbach, P. 1996. Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach, Chicago: Open Court.
40. Johnson, R. H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
41. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S. and Chen, C. 1998. Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20: 849-871.
42. Kienpointner, M. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.
43. Klaczynski, P. A. and Robinson, B. 2000. Personal theories, intellectual ability and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15: 400-416.
44. Kline, J. A. 1971. A Q-analysis of encoding behavior in the selection of evidence. Speech Monographs, 37: 190-197.
45. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V. and Felton, M. 1997. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15: 287-315.
46. Levasseur, D. and Dean, K. W. 1996. The use of evidence in presidential debates: A study ofevidence levels and types from 1960 to 1988. Argumentation and Advocacy, 32: 129-142.
47. Lunsford, A. A., Wilson, K. H. and Eberly, R. A. 2009. The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Maio, G. R. and Haddock, G. G. 2010. The psychology of attitudes and attitude change, London: Sage.
49. McKenzie, C., Lee, S. and Chen, K. 2002. When negative evidence increases confidence: change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15: 1-18.
50. Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34: 57-74.
51. Mischo, C. 2003. Cognitive, emotional and verbal response in unfair everyday discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22: 119-131.
52. Neuman, Y., Glassner, A. and Weinstock, M. 2004. The effect of a reason's truth-value on the judgment of a fallacious argument. Acta Psychologica, 116: 173-184.
53. Neuman, Y., Weinstock, M. P. and Glasner, A. 2006. The effect of contextual factors on the judgment of informal reasoning fallacies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 59(A): 411-425.
54. Neuman, Y. and Weitzman, E. 2003. The role of text representation in students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 56(A): 849-864.
55. Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H. and Lemley, R. E. 1981. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13: 248-277.
56. Oaksford, M. and Chater, N. 1991. Against logicist cognitive science. Mind and Language, 6: 1-38.
57. Ohm, E. and Thompson, V. 2004. Everyday reasoning with inducements and advice. Thinking & Reasoning, 10: 241-272.
58. O'Keefe, D. J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13: 121-128.
59. O'Keefe, D. J. 1997. Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34: 1-12.
60. O'Keefe, D. J. 1998. Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review ofthe effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35: 61-75.
61. O'Keefe, D. J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and research, (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62. O'Keefe, D. J. 2007. Potential conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research. Argumentation, 21: 151-163.
63. Osherson, D., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O. and Lopez, A. 1990. Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97: 185-200.
64. Pallotta, V. and Delmonte, R. 2011. Automatic argumentative analysis for interaction mining. Argument and Computation, 2: 77-106.
65. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Kingsley Westerman, C. Y., Orfgen, T. and Foregger, S. 2007. The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33: 81-102.
66. Peters, E. and Rothbart, M. 2000. Typicality can create, eliminate, and reverse the dilution effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 177-187.
67. Pollock, J. L. 2001. Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence, 133: 233-282.
68. Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G. A. W. 2002. "Logics for defeasible argumentation". In Handbook of philosophical logic, (2nd ed., Edited by: Gabbay, D. M. and Guenthner, F. Vol. 4, 219-318. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
69. Rahwan, I., Madakkatel, M. I., Bonnefon, J. F., Awan, R. N. and Abdallah, S. 2010. Behavioral experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cognitive Science, 34: 1551-6709.
70. Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. R. 2009. Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
71. Rahwan, I., Zablith, F. and Reed, C. 2007. Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence, 171: 897-921.
72. Reed, C. and Rowe, G. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13: 961-980.
73. Reznitskaya, A. and Anderson, R. C. 2006. Analyzing argumentation in rich, natural contexts. Informal Logic, 26: 175-198.
74. Rips, L. J. 1975. Inductive judgements about natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14: 665-681.
75. Rips, L. J. 1998. Reasoning and conversation. Psychological Review, 105: 411-441.
76. Rips, L. J. 2002. Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26: 767-795.
77. Schellens, P. J. and Jong, M. de. 2004. Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18: 295-323.
78. Schreier, M., Groeben, N. and Christmann, U. 1995. "That's not fair!" Argumentational integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication. Argumentation, 9: 267-289.
79. Schum, D. A. 1994. The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
80. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2000. State-of-the-art: The structure of argumentation. Argumentation, 14: 447-473.
81. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2003. Complex argumentation in a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17: 405-419.
82. Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 1997. Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89: 342-357.
83. Tetlock, P., Lerner, J. and Boettger, R. 1996. The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26: 915-934.
84. Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T. and Handley, S. J. 2005. Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 238-257.
85. Tindale, C. W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
86. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
87. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. and Meuffels, B. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules, Dordrecht: Springer.
88. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. and Meuffels, B. 2012 this issue. The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18: 344-364.
89. Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., van Haaften, T., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. and Wagemans, J. H. M. 2012. Handbook argumentation theory, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
90. Van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
91. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
92. Van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. 2005. Argumentation in practice, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
93. Van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P. and Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. 2008. Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 475-493.
94. Van Haaften, T., Jansen, H., de Jong, J. and Koetsenruijter, W. 2011. Bending opinion: Essays on persuasion in the public domain, Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University Press.
95. Verheij, B. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 150: 291-234.
96. Walton, D. N. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy, Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
97. Walton, D. N. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
98. Walton, D. N. 1998. Ad hominem arguments, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
99. Walton, D. N. 2008. Witness testimony evidence: Argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
100. Weger, H. Jr. and Aakhus, M. 2005. "Competing demands, multiple ideals, and the structure of argumentation practices: A pragma-dialectical analysis of televised town hall meetings following the murder trial of O. J. Simpson". In Argumentation in practice, Edited by: van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. 181-195. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
101. Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y. and Tabak, I. 2004. Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students' ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29: 77-94.
102. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A. and Butler, J. A. 2009. Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26: 183-209.
103. Zenker, F. 2010. Analyzing social policy argumentation: A case study on the opinion of the German National Ethics Council on an amendment of the Stem Cell Law. Informal Logic, 30: 62-91.
104. Zukerman, I. 2009. "Towards probabilistic argumentation". In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Edited by: Rahwan, I. and Simari, G. R. 443-462. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.