Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation

Christopher R. Wolfe Miami University ; M. Anne Britt Northern Illinois University ; Jodie A. Butler Northern Illinois University

Abstract

This article describes a cognitive argumentation schema for written arguments and presents three empirical studies on the “myside” bias—the tendency to ignore or exclude evidence against one's position. Study 1 examined the consequences of conceding, rebutting, and denying other-side information. Rebuttal led to higher ratings of agreement and quality and better impressions of the author than when the same arguments excluded other-side information (i.e., exhibited the myside bias). In Study 2, claims had a significantly greater impact on agreement ratings and reasons had a significantly greater impact on quality ratings. When participants were given myside reasons supporting other-side claims, they acknowledged argument strength while making relatively minor changes in agreement. In Study 3, the authors found that a brief, theoretically motivated written tutorial was effective in improving undergraduate students' written argumentative essays by significantly increasing the precision of claims, improving the elaboration of reasons, and reducing the myside bias.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2009-04-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088309333019
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (14)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Argumentation
  3. Assessing Writing
  4. Written Communication
  5. Written Communication
Show all 14 →
  1. Argumentation
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Assessing Writing
  5. Written Communication
  6. Written Communication
  7. Written Communication
  8. Written Communication
  9. Written Communication

References (35) · 4 in this index

  1. Written Communication
  2. 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90485-1
  3. Beliefs about thinking
  4. 10.1080/13546789508256909
  5. 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.243
Show all 35 →
  1. 10.1080/01638530701739207
  2. 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0
  3. 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
  4. 10.2307/356600
  5. 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
  6. Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ran…
  7. Identifying the organization of writing processes
  8. Written Communication
  9. 10.3102/00346543071004575
  10. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003
  11. NAEP 1994 U.S. history report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational …
  12. NAEP 1998 writing report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
  13. National standards for United States history: Exploring the American experience
  14. O'Keefe, D.J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the …
  15. 10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.562
  16. Perkins, D.N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crow…
  17. Difficulties in everyday reasoning
  18. Learning to reason. Unpublished manuscript
  19. Perkins, D.N., Farady, M. & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence . In J. Voss,…
  20. Perkins, D.N. & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional aspects of intelligence. In S. Messick & J. M. Collis (Eds.…
  21. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures
  22. Models of bounded rationality
  23. 10.1023/A:1022193728205
  24. 10.1002/acp.915
  25. The uses of argument
  26. 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
  27. Argumentation
  28. Argumentation
  29. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society
  30. 10.1080/13546780701527674