Ch. 5 Flashcards

1
Q

What is the structure of arguments?

A

Toulmin - formal logic doesn’t apply to most everyday arguments

Toumin’s model:

Datum used, then warrant and backing used, then claim made

  1. Claims are supported by data, the relevance of which is established by a warrant (fact)
  2. warrants are validated by backing
  3. rebuttals may be made, leading to claims being qualified

kind of like lens model, cues = data in the argument theory….. cue utilization = use of warrants and backing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

psuedoevidence

A

a scenario, or script, depicting how the phenomenon might occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Kuhn and providing genuine evidence (causes for criminals, unemployment, etc.)

A

Fewer than hald supported arguments with genuine evidence

mostly used pseudoevidence (e.g. hypothetical story)

only 1% generated genuine evidence for all three topics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Why aren’t people always able to provide genuine evidence?

A

Brem/Rips -

creating explanations is first step towards better understanding and can guide search for data

participants more likely to give real evidence when asked what would be the ideal way to convince someone else

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Sa - How did open-mindedness/intelligence affect causal thinking? (individual differences)

A

Found that

use of covariation comparison (e.g. factors that covaried between outcome and cause) was the same regadless of cognitive ability measures

high open-mindedness was associated with less tendency to reemphasize a previous causal theory

cognitive ability in itself wasn’t associated with reemphasis of a previous causal theory

used “Could someone prove you wre wrong?”

  • unequivocal no was asociated dwith lower cognitive ability, less open-mindedness, greater supersticiousness
  • How = proof goal vs. why = explanation goal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Belief preservation in the face of contradictory evidence

A
  • MacCoun - People with very strong views on a topic do not respond appropriately to evidence that isn’t on their side….
  • Lord et al - death penalty papers - students who read studies supporting/opposing the deterrence view were more critical when the study didn’t support their own opinion
  • biased assimilation of evidence
  • attitude polarisation
  • Edwards/Smith -
  • a. ppl spend more time scrutinising arguents they disagree with
  • b. generate more thought ans arguments in repsonse to these
  • c. thoughts/arguments tend to be refutable when the presented argument is belief-incompatible (disconfirmation bias)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

rebuttal

A

an exception or weakness that weakens or overrules a claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Edwards/Smith and process behind belief preservation

A

Edwards/Smith -

a. ppl spend more time scrutinising arguents they disagree with
b. generate more thought ans arguments in repsonse to these
c. thoughts/arguments tend to be refutational when the presented argument is belief-incompatible (disconfirmation bias)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

disconfirmation bias

A

thoughts/arguments tend to be refutational when the presented argument is belief-incompatible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How do existing beliefs affect perception?

A

E.g. home team supporters perceived more infringements by the away side, while away side perceived fewer overall infringements + they were evenly dsitributed across both teams

Pro-israel/pro-arab students perceived biases against their countries in the same news segment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Motivated reasoning

A

People are motivated to try to rebut claims that don’t favour them

e. g. Ditto/Lopez - fake enzyme test - those with “decificency/no color showing on strip” waited 30 seconds longer to put it in the envelope, 52% of the decificeny group retested themselves vs. 18% in the normal group
- deficiency group perceived enzyme deficiency to be more common and less serious
- rated pancreatic diease (consequence of deficiency) as less serious and more common
- regarded saliv atest as less accurate indicator of their health status

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Finding flaws in arguments

A

Shaw - some objections to arguments are easier to make because less cognitively taxing

Easier to question the truth/falseness than questioning a link between two premises

Those with better reading/txt comprehension are more likely to ID reasoning fallacies in everyday language

Drawing attention to premise-conclusion links increased attacks on the link

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

One-sided vs. two-sided arguments

A

Can be advantageous sometimes to present both sides of an argument…. however, tendency to support one-sided arguments

Hovland’s broadcasts to US troops in Japan after Germany’s defeat - intended to convey that it was still a hard battle ahead….. 1 sided and 2 sided broadcasts effecive at convincing different targets

Legal triels - defence team benefits from raising damaging evidence before the prosecution does….. reduces perceived bias and prevents audience from generating own counterarguments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Biases in favour of prior knowledge or belief

A

George - said: assume that premises are true, then rate the truth of the conclusion

If exports decrease then unemploymeny will rise. Exports decrease. Thus, unemployment is rising.

45% participants did not choose true….. shows that people are often unable to let go of their previous knowledge ->

Belief bias - believable conclusions accepted more often than unbelievable ones, especially with deductievly invalid arguments

Kuhn - participants unable to generate counterarguments to own views

Myside bias - informal reasoning, same as belief bias

Individual differences - belief bias is less prominent among high schorers on cognitive ability tests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

modus ponens

A

if P then Q.

P.

Therefore Q.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

modus tollens

A

if P then Q.

Not Q.

Therefore, not P.

17
Q

Logical argument flaws, deductively invalid

A

affirming the consequent :

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

Denying the antecedent:

If P then Q.

Not P.

Therefore Not Q.

18
Q

Belief bias

A

Belief bias - believable conclusions accepted more often than unbelievable ones, especially with deductievly invalid arguments

19
Q

Persuasion routes

A

central route - arguments more carefully scrutinized, may lead to enduring new attitues that are predictive of behaviour

peripheral route - receive only prefunctory/hasty attention, but can influence pereption of validity (e.g. when the argumentator is attractive)… can cause temporary attitude change

Route selection may depend on perceived message importance, motivation of receiver, and cognitive capacity

20
Q

Impact of mood on persuasion?

Mackie and Worth

Bless

A

Mackie and Worth - reported various studies of message processing…….. in a good mood (induced), people under time pressure showed greater attitute change to a message from an expert than a non-expert, regardless of argument strength

Posiive mood reduced cognitive capcity (not motivation) - perhaps subsequently linked to mesage itself?

Positive mood may become linked with the message itself

Bless - mood can affect both encoding processes and the construction of judgements…. …… Good mood while reading meassage? = equal influence by weak or strong

Negative mood while reading? = prefer strong arguments

Neutral state while reading? = strong argument when in good mood at time of judgement

21
Q

What does Explanation-based decision making seek to explain?

A

how people go about assessing complex information…..

how people go about asessing situations involving large amounts of evidence

22
Q

What is explanation-based decision making?

A

decision makers begin the decision process by constructing a causal model in order to explain the available facts, subsequent decisions are based on this model

  • e.g. story model - causal models have a narrative

Pennington/Hastie - jurors verdicts are affected by how easily a story can be constructed

23
Q

Pennington/Hastie -

and their two certainty principles

A

jurors verdicts are affected by how easily a story can be constructed……

reading issue-based transcript vs. story-based transcript didnt affect memory of facts (though story ppl went with story mode)….

but story ppl were more confident in their decision of guilt, and made more polarized convictions

also - blocks of evidence study - evidence shown in blocks, some ppl asked to give guilt ratings after each block, others asked to do it after all blocks……. found that participants who gave just a global rating (after all blocks) delievered verdicts more strongly poiarized

Two certainty principles:

  1. coverage - argues that acceptibility of a story depends on how much of the evidence it accounts for
  2. coherence - consistency, plausibility, completeness of a story (though when there’s more athan 1 coherent explanation confidence in both decreses)