Research has shown that novice writers tend to ignore opposing viewpoints when framing and developing arguments in writing, a phenomenon commonly referred to as my-side bias. In the present article, we contrast two forms of argumentative discourse conditions (arguing to persuade and arguing to reach consensus) and examine their differential effects on my-side bias in writing. Our data reveal that when asked to write an essay to support their opinions on capital punishment, individuals who had argued to reach consensus were more likely to cite claims that challenge their position, reconcile these claims with their position, and make use of claims that had originally been introduced by their dialogue partners. We discuss these findings in light of educational policy and practice and caution against an overemphasis on using persuasive discourse as a means of teaching argumentative reasoning and writing.
AndrewsR. (2010). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AndriessenJ. (2007). Arguing to learn. In SawyerK. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
CrammondJ. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230-268.
4.
FeltonM.Garcia-MilaM.GilabertS. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4), 417-446.
5.
FeltonM.Garcia-MilaM.VillarroelC.GilabertS. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/bjep.12078
6.
FerrettiR. P.MacArthurC. A.DowdyN. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 694-702.
7.
FischerP.GreitemeyerT. (2010). A new look at selective-exposure effects an integrative model. Current Directions in Psychological Science,19(6), 384-389.
8.
KnudsonR. E. (1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students’ persuasive writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 141-152.
9.
KuhnD. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
KuhnD.CrowellA. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22(4), 545-552.
11.
KuhnD.ShawV.FeltonM. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
12.
KuhnD.UdellW. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104.
13.
LeitãoS. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360.
14.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
15.
NussbaumE. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549-565.
16.
NussbaumE. M.KardashC. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157-169.
17.
NussbaumE. M.SchrawG. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92.
18.
PerkinsD. N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In Thinking across cultures: The third international conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
PerkinsD. N.FaradyM.BusheyB. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In VossJ.PerkinsD. N.SegalJ. (Eds.), Informal reasoning (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
PerskyH. R.DaaneM. C.JinY. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
21.
WaltonD. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3(2), 169-184.
22.
WolfeC. R.BrittM. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1-27.
23.
WolfeC. R.BrittM. A.ButlerJ. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183-209.
24.
YehS. S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49-83.
