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.
Ackerman, J.M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334-370.
2.
Anderson, R.C., & Pichert, J.W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
3.
Baron, J. (1991). Beliefs about thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education 169-186. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221-235.
5.
Birnbaum, M.H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 211: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4, 243-249.
6.
Britt, M.A., Kurby, C.A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C.R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52-84.
7.
Britt, M.A., & Larson, A.A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 794-810.
8.
Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.
9.
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Comprehension and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
10.
Gigerenzar, G., & Goldstein, D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review , 103, 650-669.
11.
Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Randsdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes . In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, 3-30. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Hull, G.A. (1999). What's in a label? Complicating notions of the skills-poor worker. Written Communication, 16, 379-411.
14.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 575-611.
15.
Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K.E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115-127.
16.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1996). NAEP 1994 U.S. history report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1998). NAEP 1998 writing report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18.
National Center for History in the Schools. ( 1996). National standards for United States history: Exploring the American experience. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
19.
O'Keefe, D.J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 209-249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Perkins, D.N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-571.
21.
Perkins, D.N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking, 175-194. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Perkins, D.N., Allen, R., & Hafner, J. (1983). Difficulties in everyday reasoning. In W. Maxwell (Ed.), Thinking: The expanding frontier, 177-189. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.
23.
Perkins, D.N., Bushey, B., & Farady, M. (1986). Learning to reason. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA.
24.
Perkins, D.N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence . In J. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Perkins, D.N., & Tishman, S. (2001). Dispositional aspects of intelligence. In S. Messick & J. M. Collis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 233-257). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/Plymouth.pdf
26.
Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Simon, H.A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
29.
Toplak, M.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education . Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851-860.
30.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and further directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.
32.
Voss, J.F. (2005). Toulmin's model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19, 321-329.
33.
Voss, J.F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Silfes, L.N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7, 165-181.
34.
Wolfe, C.R., & Britt, M.A. (2005). The use of other side information: Explaining the myside bias in argumentation. Paper presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Toronto, Canada.
35.
Wolfe, C.R., & Britt, M.A. (2008). Locus of the myside bias in written argumentation . Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1-27.
