Social and cognitive psychologists each study factors that influence the believability of arguments, but they have worked mostly in parallel. We briefly examine and compare the dominant theories explaining argument believability in the social persuasion literature and the cognitive category-based induction literature. Although the two areas ask similar questions, they use different paradigms to study different aspects of the issues. We describe each area’s major paradigms and questions and then examine the conclusions that each area draws regarding the role of five variables important to argument believability: (a) the number of sources/premises, (b) the similarity between sources/premises, (c) individual differences in characteristics of the reasoner, (d) the available resources, and (e) the reasoner’s background knowledge and beliefs. Comparing the two literatures provides a more complete picture of the factors influencing argument believability and provides fruitful new avenues for integration and exploration.
CacioppoJ.T.PettyR.E.KaoC.F.RodriguezR. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1032–1043.
2.
CacioppoJ.T.PettyR.E.MorrisK.J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805–818.
3.
De NeysW. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428–433.
4.
EvansJ.St.B.T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–78.
5.
EvansJ.St.B.T.Curtis-HolmesJ. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382–389.
6.
FeeneyA. (2007). How many processes underlie category-based induction? Effects of conclusion specificity and cognitive ability. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1830–1839.
7.
FeeneyA.ShaftoP.DunningD. (2007). Who is susceptible to conjunction fallacies in category-based induction?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 884–889.
8.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision-making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
9.
HarkinsS.G.PettyR.E. (1981a). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 401–413.
10.
HarkinsS.G.PettyR.E. (1981b). The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 627–635.
11.
HarkinsS.G.PettyR.E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260–268.
12.
Johnson-LairdP.N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LópezA. (1995). The diversity principle in the testing of arguments. Memory & Cognition, 23, 374–382.
15.
LópezA.AtranS.ColeyJ.D.MedinD.L.SmithE.E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 251–295.
16.
MainesL.A. (1990). The effect of forecast redundancy on judgments of a consensus forecast’s expected accuracy. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 29–47.
17.
MedinD.L.ColeyJ.D.StormsG.HayesB.K. (2003). A relevance theory of induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 517–532.
18.
NisbettR.E.KrantzD.H.JepsonC.KundaZ. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.
PettyR.E.BriñolP. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to metacognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137–147.
21.
PettyR.E.CacioppoJ.T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.
22.
PettyR.E.CacioppoJ.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.
23.
PettyR.E.CacioppoJ.T.GoldmanR. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinate of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
24.
PettyR.E.WheelerC.TormalaZ.L. (2003). Persuasion and attitude change. In MellonT.LernerM.J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology (pp. 353–382). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
25.
PriesterJ.R.PettyR.E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 408–421.
26.
ProffittJ.B.ColeyJ.D.MedinD.L. (2000). Expertise and category-based induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 811–828.
27.
SchulY.BurnsteinE.BardiA. (1995). Dealing with deceptions that are difficult to detect: Encoding and judgment as a function of preparing to review invalid information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 228–253.
28.
ShaftoP.ColeyJ.D.BaldwinB. (2007). Effects of time pressure on context-sensitive property induction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 890–894.
29.
SmithE.R.DeCosterJ. (2000). Dual process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131.
30.
SollJ.B. (1999). Intuitive theories of information: Beliefs about the value of redundancy. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 317–346.
31.
SpellmanB.A.LópezA.SmithE.E. (1999). Hypothesis testing: Strategy selection for generalizing versus limiting hypotheses. Thinking & Reasoning, 5, 67–91.
32.
StanovichK.E.WestR.F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.
33.
StanovichK.E.WestR.F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.
34.
TenenbaumJ.B.GriffithsT.L.KempC. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 311–318.
35.
TenenbaumJ.B.KempC.ShaftoP. (2007). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive reasoning. In FeeneyA.HeitE. (Eds.), Inductive reasoning (pp. 114–136). London: Cambridge University Press.
36.
ValloneR.P.RossL.LepperM.R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577–585.
37.
WooS.E.HarmsP.D.KuncelN.R. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1635–1639.
38.
YoonC.LeeM.P.DanzigerS. (2007). The effects of optimal time of day on persuasion processes in older adults. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 475–495.
