1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics & Cognition
  4. Volume 31, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

When processing political arguments, people are strongly affected by their prior ideological beliefs. Political cognition often relies on two types of ideological biases. Firstly, confirmation bias leads addressees of political communication to accept arguments that affirm their preferred ideological positions. Secondly, disconfirmation bias probes reasoners to reject arguments that provide attitudinally incongruent evidence. Here, we report the findings of an experiment aimed at investigating the role of biased reasoning on perceptions of argument soundness. We focused on the processing of the strawman fallacy to determine whether strawman effectiveness is contingent upon the activation of different ideological biases. We examined argument comprehension, argument evaluation and fallacy identification by means of a memory task, a rating task and an interview. Our data suggests that ideological biases and fallacy effect are associated with deliberative cognitive settings and marks a distinction between evaluative attitudes and the capacity to identify fallacies in political argumentation.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00046.ser
2024-10-11
2025-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pc.00046.ser
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pc.00046.ser.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00046.ser&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Albarracin, Dolores & Sharon Shavitt
    2018 Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology69(1). 299–327. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑122216‑011911
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anduiza, Eva, Aina Gallego & Jordi Muñoz
    2013 Turning a blind eye. Comparative Political Studies46(12). 1664–1692. 10.1177/0010414013489081
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013489081 [Google Scholar]
  3. Areni, Charles S. & Richard J. Lutz
    1988 The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. ACR North American Advances1971. www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_role_of_argument_quality_in_the_elaboration_likelihood_model.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aspernäs, Julia, Arvid Erlandsson & Artur Nilsson
    2023 Motivated formal reasoning: Ideological belief bias in syllogistic reasoning across diverse political issues. Thinking & Reasoning29(1). 43–69. 10.1080/13546783.2022.2038268
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2038268 [Google Scholar]
  5. Axsom, Danny, Suzanne Yates & Shelly Chaiken
    1987 Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53(1). 30–40. 10.1037/0022‑3514.53.1.30
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.30 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrett, Lisa Feldman, Michele M. Tugade & Randall W. Engle
    2004 Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin130(4). 553–573. 10.1037/0033‑2909.130.4.553
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models usinglme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bisgaard, Martin
    2019 How getting the facts right can fuel partisan-motivated reasoning. American Journal of Political Science63(4). 824–839. 10.1111/ajps.12432
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12432 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bizer, George Y., Shirel M. Kozak & Leigh Ann Holterman
    2009 The persuasiveness of the strawman rhetorical technique. Social Influence4(3). 216–230. 10.1080/15534510802598152
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802598152 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boone, Daniel N.
    1999 The cogent reasoning model of informal fallacies. Informal Logic19(1). 10.22329/il.v19i1.2313
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v19i1.2313 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bordalo, Pedro, Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer
    2016 Stereotypes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics131(4). 1753–1794. 10.3386/w20106
     https://doi.org/10.3386/w20106 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brainerd, Charles J. & Valerie F. Reyna
    2002 Fuzzy-trace theory: Dual processes in memory, reasoning, and cognitive neuroscience. Advances in child development and behavior281. 41–100. 10.1016/S0065‑2407(02)80062‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(02)80062-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carpenter, Christopher J.
    2019 Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. Annals of the International Communication Association43(1). 1–23. 10.1080/23808985.2018.1564881
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1564881 [Google Scholar]
  14. Castelli, Luigi & Luciana Carraro
    2011 Ideology is related to basic cognitive processes involved in attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology47(5). 1013–1016. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chaiken, Shelly & Alison Ledgerwood
    2012 A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. InPaul A. M. Van Lange, Arie W. Kruglanski & E. Tory Higgins (eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, 246–266. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446249215.n13
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n13 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crano, William D. & Radmila Prislin
    2006 Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology57(1). 345–374. 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Neys, Wim
    2006 Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59(6). 1070–1100. 10.1080/02724980543000123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000123 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dijk, Teun A. van
    2006 Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies11(2). 115–140. 10.1080/13569310600687908
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dougherty, Michael R. P., Scott D. Gronlund & Charles F. Gettys
    2003 Memory as a fundamental heuristic for decision making. InSandra L. Schneider & James Shanteau (eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research, 125–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609978.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609978.007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Edwards, Kari & Edward E. Smith
    1996 A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1). 5–24. 10.1037/0022‑3514.71.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  21. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels
    2009 Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2614‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst
    1992 Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Jonathan
    2006 The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13(3). 378–395. 10.3758/BF03193858
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193858 [Google Scholar]
  24. Evans, Jonathan & Jodie Curtis-Holmes
    2005 Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning11(4). 382–389. 10.1080/13546780542000005
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780542000005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gallo, David A., Nathaniel G. Meadow, Elizabeth L. Johnson & Katherine T. Foster
    2008 Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of Memory and Language58(4). 1095–1111. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gampa, Anup, Sean P. Wojcik, Matt Motyl, Brian A. Nosek & Peter H. Ditto
    2019 (Ideo)Logical reasoning: Ideology impairs sound reasoning. Social Psychological & Personality Science10(8). 1075–1083. 10.1177/1948550619829059
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619829059 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gigerenzer, Gerd
    1991 How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases.” European Review of Social Psychology2(1). 83–115. 10.1080/14792779143000033
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033 [Google Scholar]
  28. Godden, David
    2015 Argumentation, rationality, and psychology of reasoning. Informal Logic35(2). 135. 10.22329/il.v35i2.4124
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i2.4124 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hahn, Ulrike & Mike Oaksford
    2007 The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review114(3). 704–732. 10.1037/0033‑295X.114.3.704
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704 [Google Scholar]
  30. Handley, Ian M. & Brett M. Runnion
    2011 Evidence that unconscious thinking influences persuasion based on argument quality. Social Cognition29(6). 668–682. 10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.668
     https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.668 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hogg, Michael A., Dominic Abrams, Sabine Otten & Steve Hinkle
    2004 The social identity perspective. Small Group Research35(3). 246–276. 10.1177/1046496404263424
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404263424 [Google Scholar]
  32. Homer-Dixon, Thomas, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Matto Mildenberger, Manjana Milkoreit, Steven J. Mock, Stephen Quilley, Tobias Schröder & Paul Thagard
    2013 A complex systems approach to the study of ideology: Cognitive-affective structures and the dynamics of belief systems. Journal of Social and Political Psychology1(1). 337–363. 10.5964/jspp.v1i1.36
     https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.36 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hornikx, Jos
    2010 Book review of: Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Information Design Journal18(2). 10.1075/idj.18.2.10hor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.18.2.10hor [Google Scholar]
  34. Huddy, Leonie
    2001 From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology22(1). 127–156. 10.1111/0162‑895X.00230
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00230 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackson, Sally
    1995 InFrans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, & Charles A. Willard (eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (vol.II1), 257–269. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kahan, Dan M.
    2013 Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making8(4). 407–424. 10.1017/S1930297500005271
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen
    2017 LMERTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82(13). 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lavine, Howard
    1999 Types of evidence and routes to persuasion: The unimodel versus dual-process models. Psychological Inquiry10(2). 141–144. 10.1207/S15327965PL100208
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PL100208 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewinski, Marcin & Steve Oswald
    2013 When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics591. 164–177. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lu, Yong
    2015 The conjunction and disjunction fallacies: Explanations of the LINDA problem by the equate-to-differentiate model. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science50(3). 507–531. 10.1007/s12124‑015‑9314‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9314-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. March, Luke
    2012 Problems and perspectives of contemporary European radical left parties: Chasing a lost world or still a world to win?International Critical Thought2(3). 314–339. 10.1080/21598282.2012.706777
     https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2012.706777 [Google Scholar]
  42. McClosky, Herbert & Dennis Chong
    1985 Similarities and differences between left-wing and right-wing radicals. British Journal of Political Science15(3). 329–363. 10.1017/S0007123400004221
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004221 [Google Scholar]
  43. Morsanyi, Kinga & Simon J. Handley
    2012 “Logic feels so good — I like it!” Evidence for intuitive detection of logicality in syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition38(3). 596–616. 10.1037/a0026099
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026099 [Google Scholar]
  44. Neuman, Yair, Michael P. Weinstock & Amnon Glasner
    2006 The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59(2). 411–425. 10.1080/17470210500151436
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500151436 [Google Scholar]
  45. Nilsson, Artur, Arvid Erlandsson & Daniel Västfjäll
    2019 The complex relation between receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit and political ideology. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin45(10). 1440–1454. 10.1177/0146167219830415
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219830415 [Google Scholar]
  46. O’Keefe, Daniel J.
    2014 Pragma-dialectics and persuasion effects research. InPeter Houtlosser & Agnes van Rees (eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics, 235–243. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2013 Elaboration likelihood model. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece011.pub2
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece011.pub2 [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Keefe, Daniel J. & Sally Jackson
    1995 Argument quality and persuasive effects: A review of current approaches. InArgumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth Alta Conference on Argumentation, 88–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Oswald, Steve & Marcin Lewinski
    2014 Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the strawman fallacy. Rhétorique et cognition: Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasive [Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies], 313–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pennycook, Gordon & David G. Rand
    2019 Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition1881. 39–50. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 [Google Scholar]
  51. Petty, Richard E. & John T. Cacioppo
    1984 Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. ACR North American Advances. www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=6328
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Petty, Richard E., Leandre R. Fabrigar & Duane T. Wegener
    2002 Emotional factors in attitudes and persuasion. InRichard J. Davidson, Klaus R. Sherer & H. Hill Goldsmith (eds.), Handbook of affective sciences, 752–772. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0039
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195126013.003.0039 [Google Scholar]
  53. RStudio Team
    RStudio Team 2023 RStudio: Integrated development for R (Version 1.4.1106) [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.rstudio.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Saumya Sahai, Oana Balalau & Roxana Horincar
    2021 Breaking down the invisible wall of informal fallacies in online discussions. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), 644–657. 10.18653/v1/2021.acl‑long.53
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.53 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schaller, Mark & Steven L. Neuberg
    2008 Intergroup prejudices and intergroup conflicts. Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology. 10.4324/9780203888155.ch21
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203888155.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  56. Seyranian, Viviane
    2014 Social identity framing communication strategies for mobilizing social change. Leadership Quarterly25(3). 468–486. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  57. Smith, Anthony T. & Raymond Tatalovich
    2003 Cultures at war: Moral conflicts in Western democracies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Stanovich, Keith E. & Richard F. West
    1997 Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology89(2). 342–357. 10.1037/0022‑0663.89.2.342
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342 [Google Scholar]
  59. Strickland, April A., Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge
    2011 Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law36(6). 935–944. 10.1215/03616878‑1460524
     https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460524 [Google Scholar]
  60. Taber, Charles S., Damon Cann & Simona Kucsova
    2008 The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior31(2). 137–155. 10.1007/s11109‑008‑9075‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8 [Google Scholar]
  61. Taber, Charles S. & Milton Lodge
    2006 Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3). 755–769. 10.1111/j.1540‑5907.2006.00214.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x [Google Scholar]
  62. Tajfel, Henri
    1974 Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information131:65–93. 10.1177/053901847401300204
     https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204 [Google Scholar]
  63. Teig, Nani & Ronny Scherer
    2016 Bringing formal and informal reasoning together — A new era of assessment?Frontiers in Psychology71. 1097. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01097
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01097 [Google Scholar]
  64. Voss, James F., Rebecca Fincher-Kiefer, Jennifer Wiley & Laurie Ney Silfies
    1993 On the processing of arguments. Argumentation7(2). 165–181. 10.1007/BF00710663
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710663 [Google Scholar]
  65. Walton, Douglas
    2010 Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic30(2). 159. 10.22329/il.v30i2.2868
     https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i2.2868 [Google Scholar]
  66. Walton, Douglas N.
    1989 Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation3(2). 169–184. 10.1007/BF00128147
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128147 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wason, P. C. & J.St.B. T. Evans
    1974 Dual processes in reasoning?Cognition3(2). 141–154. 10.1016/0010‑0277(74)90017‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(74)90017-1 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wolfe, Michael B. & Christopher A. Kurby
    2016 Belief in the claim of an argument increases perceived argument soundness. Discourse Processes54(8). 599–617. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137446
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1137446 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00046.ser
Loading
Fallacies and biases
Pragmatics & Cognition 31, 244 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.00046.ser
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00046.ser
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.00046.ser
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): confirmation bias; disconfirmation bias; dual-process model; informal argumentation; political cognition; strawman fallacy

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error