Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality

Bibliographic Data

ID5268880
AuthorsCheng‐hong Liu (0000-0003-3741-308X, Center for Teacher Education National Tsing Hua University Hsinchu City Taiwan, corresponding author), H J Lee (0000-0001-8353-3619, Hsuan Chuang University), Hung‐wei Lee (Department of Applied Psychology Hsuan Chuang University Hsinchu City Taiwan), Po‐sheng Huang (0000-0002-5811-6060, Department of Applied Psychology Hsuan Chuang University Hsinchu City Taiwan), Hsueh-Chih Chen (0000-0003-2043-0190, National Taiwan Normal University), Hsueh‐chih Chen (Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling National Taiwan Normal University Taipei City Taiwan), Scott Sommer (0000-0001-6705-9443, Ming Chuan University), Scott Sommers (English Learning Center Ming Chuan University Taipei City Taiwan)
Year2016
Volume107
Issue1
Pages179-198
Publication date2016-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBritish Journal of Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0007-1269 • E-ISSN: 2044-8295
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/bjop.12133
PMID25966342
OpenAlexW2131962999
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited71

Previous studies have demonstrated that arguments incompatible with prior beliefs are subjected to more extensive refutational processing, scrutinized longer, and judged to be weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. However, this study suggests whether extensive processing is implemented when evaluating arguments is not decided by argument compatibility, but by congruence between two evaluating tendencies elicited by both argument compatibility and argument quality. Consistent with this perspective, the results of two experiments show that relative to congruent arguments, participants judged arguments eliciting incongruent evaluating tendencies as less extreme in strength, spent more time, and felt more hesitant generating strength judgments for them. The results also show that it is mainly incongruent arguments, not congruent arguments, whose strength ratings were more closely associated with the perceived personal importance of the issue, which intensified the tendency to evaluate arguments depending on argument compatibility. These results suggest that it is the incongruity between argument compatibility and argument quality, and not simply the argument compatibility, that plays a more important role in activating an extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments

Argument (complex analysis) · Compatibility (geochemistry) · Congruence (geometry) · Epistemology · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Philosophy · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub