Most Any Reason Is Better Than None: Consequences of Implausible Reasons and Warrants in Brief Written Arguments

Christopher R. Wolfe Miami University ; Hongli Gao Xinxiang Medical University ; Minhua Wu Central China Normal University ; Michael Albrecht

Abstract

Argumentation schema theory guided four experiments on the processing of plausible and implausible reasons and warrant statements testing the hypothesis that most reasons produce greater agreement with claims than when claims are presented without support. Another hypothesis was that leaving warrants unstated often produces greater agreement than when the warrant is made explicit. In Study 1, American participants were more likely to agree with claims after they read arguments than beforehand—even those with implausible reasons and warrants. In Study 2, American history and environmental science majors read brief arguments and agreed more with implausible arguments than claims alone. Study 3, with Chinese participants, replicated some but not all earlier results. In Study 4, with Chinese participants, blatantly false claims supported by bogus reasons yielded marginally greater agreement than unsupported claims. These findings suggest that many people have uncritical argumentation schemata with low support thresholds, making them vulnerable to weak and bogus arguments.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2018-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088318767370
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. College English

References (33) · 3 in this index

  1. Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2015). Best Chinese universities ranking, overall ranking—2015. Retr…
  2. 10.1023/B:JMTE.0000021943.35739.1c
  3. 10.1371/journal.pone.0168414
  4. 10.1111/hcre.12054
  5. 10.3758/s13428-015-0681-1
Show all 33 →
  1. 10.1007/s10648-010-9149-0
  2. CUCAS. (2015). 2015 top 14 psychology universities in China. Retrieved from http://www.cucas.edu.cn/studyinch…
  3. Fracchia K. (2016). ACT percentiles. Retrieved from https://magoosh.com/hs/act/about-the-act/2016/act-percentiles/
  4. 10.22329/il.v16i3.2456
  5. 10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_6
  6. 10.1111/jcal.12118
  7. 10.22329/il.v17i1.2396
  8. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.258
  9. 10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
  10. 10.1080/13546783.2014.1002534
  11. Miami University. (2016). Did you know? Information on our incoming class of 2020. Retrieved from http://www.…
  12. 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
  13. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
  14. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.004
  15. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.10.001
  16. Models of bounded rationality
  17. The uses of argument
  18. U.S. News & World Report . (2017). National universities: Miami University. Retrieved f…
  19. 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
  20. 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
  21. Logique & Analyse
  22. 10.1080/19462166.2015.1123772
  23. Written Communication
  24. Paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver
  25. 10.1080/13546780701527674
  26. Written Communication
  27. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective
  28. Argumentation