Processing and Representation of Arguments in One-Sided Texts About Disputed Topics

Discourse Processes

Volumn 50, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 457-497

  Wolfe, Michael B ^a   Tanner, Shawna M ^a   Taylor, Andrew R ^a  

^a GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885034087     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.828480     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Albrecht, J. E. and O'Brien, E. J. 1993. Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19: 1061 - 1070.
2. Allen, M. 1991. Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55: 390 - 404.
3. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S. and Wolfe, C. R. 2008. I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45: 52 - 84.
4. Britton, B. K. 1994. " Understanding expository text: Building mental structures to induce insights ". In Handbook of psycholinguistics, Edited by: Gernsbacher, M. A. 641 - 674. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5. Bushman, B. J. and Anderson, C. A. 2001. Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56: 477 - 489.
6. Caillies, S., Denhière, G. and Jhean-Larose, S. 1999. " The intermediate effect: Interaction between prior knowledge and text structure ". In The construction of mental representations during reading, Edited by: van Oostendorp, H. and Goldman, S. R. 151 - 168. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Centerwall, B. S. 1993. Television and violent crime. Public Interest, 111: 56 - 71.
8. Coté, N. C., Goldman, S. R. and Saul, E. U. 1998. Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25: 1 - 53.
9. Dole, J. A. and Sinatra, G. M. 1998. Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33: 109 - 128.
10. Eagly, A. H., Chen, S., Chaiken, S. and Shaw-Barnes, K. 1999. The impact of attitudes on memory: An affair to remember. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 64 - 89.
11. Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Brannon, L. A., Shaw, K. and Hutson-Comeaux, S. 2000. Why counterattitudinal messages are as memorable as proattitudinal messages: The importance of active defense against attack. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 1392 - 1408.
12. Edwards, K. and Smith, E. E. 1996. A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 5 - 24.
13. Freedman, J. L. (2007). Television violence and aggression: Setting the record straight. Retrieved from http://www.mediainstitute.org/IssuePapers.php
14. Gernsbacher, M. A. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L. and Clark, L. F. 1980. Structural components of reading time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19: 135 - 151.
16. Greenwald, A. G. and Sakumura, J. S. 1967. Attitude and selective learning: Where are the phenomena of yesteryear?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (4, Pt. 1): 387 - 397.
17. Griffin, T. D. (2004). Revising beliefs based in evidence versus affect: Effects on knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago
18. Griffin, T. D. 2008. " Faith: Serving emotional epistemic goals rather than evidence coherence ". In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Sloutsky, V., Love, B. and McRae, K. 2059 - 2064. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
19. Griffin, T. D. and Ohlsson, S. 2001. " Beliefs versus knowledge: A necessary distinction for explaining, predicting, and assessing conceptual change ". In Proceedings of the twenty-third conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Moore, J. D. and Stenning, K. 392 - 397. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V. and Felton, M. 1997. Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15: 287 - 315.
22. Kuhn, D. and Udell, W. 2003. The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74: 1245 - 1260.
23. Larson, M., Britt, M. A. and Larson, A. A. 2004. Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25: 205 - 224.
24. Lorch, R. F. Jr. and Myers, J. L. 1990. Regression analyses of repeated measured data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16: 149 - 157.
25. Maier, J. and Richter, T. 2013. Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31: 151 - 175.
26. Mannes, S. M. and Kintsch, W. 1987. Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4: 91 - 115.
27. McNamara, D. S. 2004. SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38: 1 - 30.
28. Murphy, P. K. and Mason, L. 2006. " Changing knowledge and beliefs ". In The handbook of educational psychology, Edited by: Alexander, P. A. and Winne, P. H. 305 - 324. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation's report card: Grade 12 reading and mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results (NCES 2011-455). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education
30. Recht, D. R. and Leslie, L. 1988. Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80: 16 - 20.
31. Roberts, J. V. 1985. The attitude-memory relationship after 40 years: A meta-analysis of the literature. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 6: 221 - 241.
32. Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L. and Voss, J. F. 1979. Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 275 - 290.
33. Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Miller, L. M. S., Gagne, D. D. and Hertzog, C. 2008. Self-regulated reading in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 23: 131 - 153.
34. Trabasso, T. and Magliano, J. P. 1996. Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21: 255 - 287.
35. van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension, New York, NY: Academic Press.
36. Wiley, J. 2005. A fair and balanced look at the news: What affects memory for controversial arguments?. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 95 - 109.
37. Wolfe, C. R. and Britt, M. A. 2008. The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14: 1 - 27.
38. 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.
39. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., Petrovic, M., Albrecht, M. and Kopp, K. 2009. The efficacy of a web-based counterargument tutor. Behavior Research Methods, 41: 691 - 698.
40. Wolfe, M. B. W., Kurby, C. A., & Taylor, A. R. (2012, July). Argument evaluation and recall as a function of belief in the argument. Poster presented at the twenty-second annual conference of the Society for Text & Discourse, Montreal, Canada
41. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P. and Graesser, A. C. 1995. Dimensions of situations model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21: 386 - 397.
42. Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., Hilliard, A. E. and Curiel, J. M. 1998. Constructing multidimensional situation models during reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2: 199 - 220.