Ch. 5 Flashcards
What is the structure of arguments?
Toulmin - formal logic doesn’t apply to most everyday arguments
Toumin’s model:
Datum used, then warrant and backing used, then claim made
- Claims are supported by data, the relevance of which is established by a warrant (fact)
- warrants are validated by backing
- 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
psuedoevidence
a scenario, or script, depicting how the phenomenon might occur
Kuhn and providing genuine evidence (causes for criminals, unemployment, etc.)
Fewer than hald supported arguments with genuine evidence
mostly used pseudoevidence (e.g. hypothetical story)
only 1% generated genuine evidence for all three topics
Why aren’t people always able to provide genuine evidence?
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
Sa - How did open-mindedness/intelligence affect causal thinking? (individual differences)
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
Belief preservation in the face of contradictory evidence
- 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)
rebuttal
an exception or weakness that weakens or overrules a claim
Edwards/Smith and process behind belief preservation
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)
disconfirmation bias
thoughts/arguments tend to be refutational when the presented argument is belief-incompatible
How do existing beliefs affect perception?
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
Motivated reasoning
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
Finding flaws in arguments
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
One-sided vs. two-sided arguments
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
Biases in favour of prior knowledge or belief
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
modus ponens
if P then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.
modus tollens
if P then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
Logical argument flaws, deductively invalid
affirming the consequent :
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
Denying the antecedent:
If P then Q.
Not P.
Therefore Not Q.
Belief bias
Belief bias - believable conclusions accepted more often than unbelievable ones, especially with deductievly invalid arguments
Persuasion routes
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
Impact of mood on persuasion?
Mackie and Worth
Bless
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
What does Explanation-based decision making seek to explain?
how people go about assessing complex information…..
how people go about asessing situations involving large amounts of evidence
What is explanation-based decision making?
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
Pennington/Hastie -
and their two certainty principles
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:
- coverage - argues that acceptibility of a story depends on how much of the evidence it accounts for
- coherence - consistency, plausibility, completeness of a story (though when there’s more athan 1 coherent explanation confidence in both decreses)
