Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality

British Journal of Psychology

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 179-198

  Liu, Cheng Hong ^a   Lee, Hung Wei ^b   Huang, Po Sheng ^b   Chen, Hsueh Chih ^c   Sommers, Scott ^d  

^a NATIONAL TSING HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b HSUAN CHUANG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d MING CHUAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Argument compatibility; Argument quality; Congruence model; Disconfirmation model; Evaluation of arguments

Indexed keywords

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL;

CULTURE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 84953636212     PISSN: 00071269     EISSN: 20448295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12133     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alison, L., Almond, L., Christiansen, P., Waring, S., Power, N., & Villejoubert, G. (2012). When do we believe experts? The power of the unorthodox view. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 30, 729-748. doi:10.1002/bsl.2030
2. Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Motivational bias in criminal investigators' judgments of witness reliability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 561-591. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00175.x
3. Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.1.5
4. Bassili, J. N. (2008). Attitude strength. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 237-260). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
5. Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Ross, L. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22, 731-732. doi:10.1177/0956797611406447
6. Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 391-417. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609
7. Bohner, G., Erb, H.-P., & Siebler, F. (2008). Information processing approaches to persuasion integrating assumptions from the dual- and single- processing perspectives. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 161-188). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.1.97
9. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752
10. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12. Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 565-577. doi:10.1177/0146167207312527
13. Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., Habashi, M. M., & Evans, A. T. (2012). Source expertise and persuasion: The effects of perceived opposition or support on message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 90-100. doi:10.1177/0146167211420733
14. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261-286). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
15. Crites, J. O. (1965). Test reviews: Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 328-330. doi:10.1037/h0020517
16. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.63.4.568
17. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitudes. Social Cognition, 25, 582-602. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582
18. Eagly, A. H., Kulesa, P., Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (2001). Do attitudes affect memory? Tests of the congeniality hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 5-9. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00102
19. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1
20. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.5
21. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
22. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Frey, D. (2008). Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 382-395. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.382
23. Greenwald, A. G., & Sakumura, J. S. (1967). Attitude and selective learning: Where are the phenomena of yesteryear? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 387-397. doi:10.1037/h0025229
24. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588. doi:10.1037/a0015701
25. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115-134. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115
26. Kleinhesselink, R. R., & Edwards, R. E. (1975). Seeking and avoiding belief-discrepant information as a function of its perceived refutability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 787-790. doi:10.1037/h0076702
27. Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28-55. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1044
28. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.480
29. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Levine, J. M., & Murphy, G. (1943). The learning and forgetting of controversial material. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 507-517. doi:10.1037/h0062586
31. Liu, C. H., Chen, H. C., Chang, W. J., & Chang, J. H. (2011). The conscious mechanisms of the influences of argument position and argument quality on senior high school students' argument agreement/disagreement responses. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 42, 491-515. doi:10.6251/BEP.20100818
32. 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, 2098-2109. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.11.2098
33. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.1.13
34. Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157-166. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157
35. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.10.1915
36. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
37. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.3.367
38. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
39. Ranganath, K. A., Spellman, B. A., & Joy-Gaba, J. A. (2010). 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, 5, 115-122. doi:10.1177/1745691610361604
40. Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1980). The perseverance of beliefs: Empirical and normative considerations. In R. A ., Shweder & D ., Fiske (Eds.), New directions for methodology of behavioral science: Fallible judgment in behavioral research (Vol. 4, pp. 17-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. Simon, D., Snow, C. J., & Read, S. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 814-837. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.814
42. Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 180-190. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.69.2.180
43. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342-357. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.2.342
44. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.127.2.161
45. Taber, C., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8
46. van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., de Vries, N. K., Wenneker, C., & Verhue, D. (2004). Ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 431-447. doi:10.1348/0144666042037971
47. Van Overwalle, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). A connectionist model of attitude formation and change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 231-274. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_3
48. Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., & Preisler, R. M. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 73-85. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90007-1
49. Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.5.931