2004
Volume 43, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

A phenomenon that has become clearer through social media is that people often gather with like-minded others to strengthen their opinions. In such circumstances, people do not respond in a reasonable way to the arguments of others or even completely ignore the opinions of those who think differently. But what does it mean to reason reasonably with arguments? What exactly can we expect from people? And how good are we at reasoning with arguments? Studies have shown that people can be sensitive to norms for reasonable arguments. Standpoints are more likely to be accepted if they are supported by arguments that meet normative standards. Whereas people may thus be open to reason, dealing with norms can be culture dependent. This finding creates a fascinating field of tension between absolute norms and the relativity of cultures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2021.1.003.HORN
2021-05-01
2021-06-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/43/1/04_TVT2021.1_HORN.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2021.1.003.HORN&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Breton, P.(2003). L’argumentation dans la communication (3e editie). Paris: La Découverte.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carpenter, C. J.(2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality x processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41, 501-534.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Castelain, T., Bernard, S., & Mercier, H.(2018). Evidence that two-year-old children are sensitive to information presented in arguments. Infancy, 23, 124-135.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Corner, A., & Hahn, U.(2013). Normative theories of argumentation: Are some norms better than others?Synthese, 190, 3579-3610.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eemeren, F. H. van(2010). Strategic maneuvring in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  6. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T.(2011). Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 233-290.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Garssen, B.J.(1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief: Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
  10. Hahn, U., & Harris, A. J. L.(2014). What does it mean to be biased: rationality and motivated reasoning. In B.Ross (Red.) The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 41-102). London, UK: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J.(2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193, 1833-1873.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M.(2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704-732.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hastings, A. C.(1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ongepubliceerd proefschrift, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
  14. Heijne, B.(2020). Mens/onmens. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
  15. Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J., & Linders, Y.(2020). The importance and use of normative criteria to manipulate argument quality. Journal of Advertising, 49, 195-201.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoeken, H., & Vugt, M. van(2014). Het bevooroordeelde gebruik van argumentatiespecifieke criteria. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 36, 87-105.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hofstede, G.(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  18. Hofstede, G.(1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hofstede, G.(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2e ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Red.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  21. Hornikx, J.(2011). Epistemic authority of professors and researchers: Differential perceptions by students from two cultural-educational systems. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 169-183.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hornikx, J.(2013). Een Bayesiaans perspectief op argumentkwaliteit: het ad populum-argument onder de loep. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 35, 128-143.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hornikx, J.(2020). Voor rede vatbaar. Inaugurele rede, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.
  24. Hornikx, J. (in voorbereiding).The psychological reality of argumentation schemes.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hornikx, J., & Best, J. de(2011). Persuasive evidence in India: An investigation of the impact of evidence types and evidence quality. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 246-257.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hornikx, J., & Haar, M. ter(2013). Evidence quality and persuasiveness: Germans are not sensitive to the quality of statistical evidence. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 483-501.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H.(2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74, 443-463.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jansen, H.(2019). De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing41, 143-157.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jansen, H.(2020). “The people want it, we’ll do it” Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9, 342-367.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kienpointner, M.(1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann.
  31. Kunda, Z.(1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lloyd, G. E. R.(2013). Reasoning and culture in a historical perspective. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 437-457.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mercier, H.(2011). On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 85-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mercier, H.(2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 689-700.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.(2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.(2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  37. Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J.(2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know?Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763-784.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. O’Keefe, D. J.(2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2e editie). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Keefe, D. J.(2007). Potential conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research. Argumentation, 21, 151-163.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.(1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
  41. Planel, C.(1997). National cultural values and their role in learning: A comparative ethnographic study of state primary schooling in England and France. Comparative Education, 33, 349-373.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Schellens, P. J.(1985). Redelijke argumenten: Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht: Foris.
  43. Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, P. E.(2006). When credibility attacks: the reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Walton, D. N.(1997). Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA:Penn State Press.
  45. Walton, D. N.(1999). Appeal to popular opinion.University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
  46. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.(2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  47. Weerman, A., Hoeken, H., & Hornikx, J.(2016). Een kritische analyse van de manipulatie van argumentkwaliteit in reclameonderzoek. In D.Van de Mieroop, L.Buysse, R.Coesemans, & P.Gillaerts (Red.), De macht van de taal: Taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 309-321). Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zenker, F. (Red.) (2013). Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability. Dordrecht: Springer.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2021.1.003.HORN
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2021.1.003.HORN
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argument quality; cultural differences; norms; reasoning
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error