No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Mitigating Myside Bias in Argumentation
Abstract
The ubiquity of written argument in academic contexts has underscored the importance of effective argument evaluation and writing pedagogies. Teachers can improve students’ argumentation proficiency by intentionally addressing myside bias, the propensity to support arguments with which one preemptively agrees while selectively ignoring contradictory claims and evidence. In this article, the authors identify three themes detected in a review of the literature on myside bias and offer instructional implications and strategies to address myside bias in secondary and postsecondary classrooms. Such strategies that promote critical reflection and balanced argument have implications for academic achievement and critical thinking skills beyond the classroom.
... Adopting an empathizing stance in argumentation challenges the field to reimagine the role of arguers' views and backgrounds in argumentation. Traditionally, arguers' personal beliefs in argumentation have been referred to in the literature as "my-side bias, " which could be mitigated by a series of pedagogical endeavors (Christensen-Branum et al., 2019;Felton et al., 2015;Stanovich et al., 2013). This study demonstrates, however, that the arguers' beliefs, which cannot be separated from the arguers and their argumentation, are essential for understanding their own and others' reasoning processes and are key to engaging in particular types of arguments, such as arguments of judgment. ...
Although a growing body of research recognizes the importance of viewing argumentation as a means of understanding rather than combating others, little is known about how teachers cultivate this practice in classroom conversations when teaching argumentation. This study examines how argument can be taught in classroom discourse with an empathizing stance and generates associated pedagogical constructs. Adopting a microethnographic approach to discourse analysis, this study examines the key instructional events in an argumentative writing unit in two high school English language arts classes. The analysis demonstrates that the empathizing stance is introduced in the relationship between arguers and their warrants and the differences existing between arguers. It also generates four pedagogical constructs related to the teaching of argument with the stance: (1) identifying the connection between arguers’ warrants and backgrounds; (2) transposing oneself into others’ backgrounds; (3) exploring interlocutors’ common and divergent grounds; and (4) situating argument in a broader context. It concludes with a discussion of the affordances of teaching argument with an empathizing stance.
... That said, the studies suggest that merely engaging with points of view counter to one's own is not sufficient. One must critically engage alternative points of views and be just as critical of one's own view as one is of the alternative(s) (Christensen-Branum et al., 2018). ...
In this article, we present a case of teaching argumentation with a dialogic stance to explore how such teaching shapes what counts of argumentation and engages students in a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of argumentation. Adopting a microethnographic approach to discourse analysis, we closely examine the interactions in one argumentation lesson in a high school English class. The findings demonstrate that the teacher's enacted dialogic stance facilitates the construction of argumentation components as organically related and foregrounds argument as inherently connected to and among arguers. This study holds the potential to expand the landscape of the field of argumentation education.
En este artículo, realizamos una evaluación crítica de diferentes estrategias empleadas para reducir el sesgo a mi favor. Este sesgo cognitivo ha sido caracterizado como la tendencia a producir y evaluar argumentos de manera influenciada por las propias opiniones e ideologías. Proponemos una división en dos grandes conjuntos de estrategias: un primer conjunto, vinculado a las teorías de los procesos cognitivos duales, que apunta a mejorar las habilidades del razonamiento en solitario y un segundo conjunto, vinculado a las teorías evolucionistas sobre el pensamiento humano, que se basa en el intercambio de puntos de vista en contextos dialógicos de argumentación. Mostramos que estos dos conjuntos de estrategias están enfocados en activar el mismo tipo de procesos cognitivos, sólo que mientras que el primero intenta hacerlo mediante instrucciones directas para activar estos procesos en el razonamiento en solitario, el segundo lo hace mediante el intercambio argumentativo con pares. Asimismo, argumentamos que las estrategias pertenecientes al segundo conjunto pueden resultar más promisorias puesto que esta manera de razonar con pares podría replicarse con posterioridad en otras situaciones y contextos de producción y evaluación de argumentos. Finalmente, destacamos la importancia de seguir explorando estrategias destinadas a estimular las prácticas metacognitivas.
例据使用是口语论证能力的重要组成部分，它指的是用于论证观点可 靠性的支撑证据。本书首先以中国大学生英语口语例据为研究主线，在国内外现有研究的基础上，阐释了论证构建与例据使用的关系以及英语口语例据使用的相关概念；其次从质性研究的视角，运用访谈、观察、文本分析等多种数据收集与分析方法，深入研究口语例据使用的发展模型和合作构建范式，揭示中国学生口语例据使用的规律；最后，本书讨论了新兴技术 在例据使用教学中的应用，并对未来的研究方向提出展望。讨论内容对应 用语言学的研究有一定的理论价值，对我国外语教学实践也有一定的启示。
本书适合从事应用语言学研究或外语教学的学者及教师阅读。
Studies on writing development have grown in diversity and depth in recent decades, but remain fragmented along lines of theory, method, and age ranges or populations studied. Meaningful, competent writing performances that meet the demands of the moment rely on many kinds of well-practiced and deeply understood capacities working together; however, these capacities' realization and developmental trajectories can vary from one individual to another. Without an integrated framework to understand lifespan development of writing abilities in its variation, high-stakes decisions about curriculum, instruction, and assessment are often made in unsystematic ways that may fail to support the development they are intended to facilitate; further, research may not consider the range of issues at stake in studying writing in any particular moment. To address this need and synthesize what is known about the various dimensions of writing development at different ages, the coauthors of this essay have engaged in sustained discussion, drawing on a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Drawing on research from different disciplinary perspectives, they propose eight principles upon which an account of writing development consistent with research findings could be founded. These principles are proposed as a basis for further lines of inquiry into how writing develops across the lifespan. © 2017 by the National Council Of Teachers Of English.All Rights Reserved.
This research investigated ways of encouraging students to consider more counterarguments when writing argumentative texts. One hundred eighty-four undergraduates wrote essays on TV violence. In Experiment 1, students given specific goals generated more counterarguments/rebuttals than controls. In Experiment 2, some participants were provided with a text outlining arguments/counterarguments; some were also asked to write a persuasive letter. Prior attitudes toward the topic were also measured. Persuasion instructions negatively affected and text (without persuasion instructions) positively affected counterargumentation and the overall quality of arguments. Text was only effective, however, for students with less extreme prior attitudes. The danger of using persuasion goals, and the advantages of using more specific goals (with text), are discussed.
This article explores the concepts of critical questions (from D. N. Walton, 199670.
Walton , D. N. 1996 . Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning , Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum . View all references) and integrative and refutational argument stratagems as an approach for teaching argumentation and critical thinking. A study was conducted for 6 months in 3 sections of a 7th-grade social studies classroom in which 30 students discussed and wrote about current events. One section served as a comparison group. Over time the experimental group made more arguments that integrated both sides of each issue. Collectively, the experimental group also successfully constructed salient critical questions, particularly in regard to weighing values and designing practical creative solutions. In-depth analysis of 1 student showed how conceptual structures and argument practices improved incrementally over time and how the appropriation of stratagems may have been facilitated by the dialectical nature of the intervention (e.g., using critical questions and stratagems successfully in discourse). The theoretical and practical importance of Walton's dialogue theory, and the critical question approach to argumentation, are discussed.
This mixed methods study investigated high school students’ evaluations of scientific arguments. Myside bias occurs when individuals evaluate belief-consistent information more favorably than belief-inconsistent information. In the quantitative phase, participants (n = 72 males) rated belief-consistent arguments more favorably than belief-inconsistent arguments; however, they also rated strong arguments more favorably than weak arguments, which indicated they did not evaluate the arguments exclusively on whether they were belief-consistent. In the follow-up qualitative phase, we conducted interviews with purposefully-sampled students who showed either higher or lower levels of myside bias. Results indicated that students in both groups applied normative evaluation criteria to the arguments. However, students who showed little or no myside bias applied the same evaluation criteria to arguments independent of whether they were belief-consistent, whereas students who showed high levels of myside bias applied different evaluation criteria to belief-inconsistent arguments. These findings suggest that procedural and conceptual metacognition may play a role in the extent to which individuals reason independent of their beliefs.
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.
The effects of self-regulated strategy development revising instruction for college students that targeted the use of argumentation schemes and critical questions were assessed in three conditions. In the first condition, students were taught to revise their essays by asking and answering critical questions about the argument from consequences and argument from example schemes while writing about controversial topics. In the second condition, students were taught to revise their essays by using argumentation schemes to justify their standpoint, but did not learn the critical questions. In the third condition, students received no instruction about either the argumentation schemes or the critical questions. Compared to students in the contrasting conditions, those who were taught to ask and answer critical questions wrote essays that were of higher quality, and included more counterarguments, alternative standpoints, and rebuttals. These findings indicate that strategy instruction that includes critical standards for argumentation increases college students’ sensitivity to alternative perspectives.
It is important, when writing opinion essays, for students to consider and integrate both arguments and counterarguments to develop a final conclusion. In this article, the authors explored the effect of criteria instruction and a graphic organizer to promote integration of arguments and counterarguments. The researchers randomly assigned 84 participants from an undergraduate educational psychology course to 1 of 4 conditions: training only, organizer only, combined, and control. The graphic organizer resulted in more refutations of counterarguments. However, criteria instruction resulted in better integration of argument and counterargument (with stronger rebuttals and more balanced reasoning). The authors discussed how the 2 interventions may have activated somewhat different argumentation schema in students.
Natural myside bias is the tendency to evaluate propositions from within one's own perspective when given no instructions or cues (such as within-participants conditions) to avoid doing so. We defined the participant's perspective as their previously existing status on four variables: their sex, whether they smoked, their alcohol consumption, and the strength of their religious beliefs. Participants then evaluated a contentious but ultimately factual proposition relevant to each of these demographic factors. Myside bias is defined between-participants as the mean difference in the evaluation of the proposition between groups with differing prior status on the variable. Whether an individual difference variable (such as cognitive ability) is related to the magnitude of the myside bias is indicated by whether the individual difference variable interacts with the between-participants status variable. In two experiments involving a total of over 1400 university students (n = 1484) and eight different comparisons, we found very little evidence that participants of higher cognitive ability displayed less natural myside bias. The degree of myside bias was also relatively independent of individual differences in thinking dispositions. We speculate that ideas from memetic theory and dual-process theory might help to explain why natural myside bias is quite dissociated from individual difference variables.
Three experiments were conducted to examine how precisely readers recall the
claims of arguments that they have just read. Participants read simple, 2-clause arguments
such as, “The U.S. is right to intervene in other countries’ affairs because local
events can catastrophically impact the entire world.” Participants then evaluated each
argument with respect to agreement or fit and recalled either the claim or the complete
argument. The first 2 experiments found that readers have difficulty precisely
recalling the main predicate of the claim (e.g., “should intervene” or “is right to intervene”)
as accurately as they do the theme of the argument. Furthermore, a comparison
with predicates of short narrative statements indicates that this recall difficulty is
specific to argument predicates. Experiment 3 found that skilled readers’ recall was
more accurate than less-skilled readers. It also showed that the predicate recall problem
occurred with both skilled and less-skilled readers and that it is related to one’s
ability to detect poorly formed arguments.
Toulmin's model of argumentation, developed in 1958, has guided much argumentation research in education. However, argumentation theory in philosophy and cognitive science has advanced considerably since 1958. There are currently several alternative frameworks of argumentation that can be useful for both research and practice in education. These frameworks include Walton's dialogue theory and Bayesian models of everyday arguments. This article reviews and evaluates these frameworks and shows how each can be applied instructionally (e.g., through the teaching of critical questions or probability modeling) and, from a research standpoint, in evaluating the content and quality of informal arguments. It is concluded that attention to these and other contemporary argumentation frameworks can help move the study of argumentation in education forward.
How is knowledge acquired and represented in memory? By what process do individuals come to change their ideas, conceptions, or knowledge? Although the first question has been central to cognitive psychologists' research agendas for many years, relatively less is known about the change process We examine 3 research literatures to broaden our understanding of the process of knowledge change. In particular, we draw on models of conceptual change from cognitive psychology social psychology, and science education. Each model adds a new perspective on the change process. Based on the literature from these models of change, we developed a new model that represents our reconceptualization of the change process. We describe the model and use it to point out new areas of research to be addressed.
The effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates' cognitive and strategic processing of a dual-positional text were investigated. Forty undergraduates thought aloud while reading a text that presented information both consistent and inconsistent with their prior beliefs about the HIV–AIDS relationship. Epistemological beliefs about the speed of learning affected the overall number of cognitive processes exhibited, whereas topic-specific beliefs interacted with the nature of the information read to influence the specific type of cognitive processing used. Strategies for accepting or resolving apparent ambiguities in text were related positively to delayed recall; cognitive processes for developing awareness were related negatively to the number of distortions produced. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Two critical thinking skills—the tendency to avoid myside bias and to avoid one-sided thinking—were examined in three different experiments involving over 1200 participants and across two different paradigms. Robust indications of myside bias were observed in all three experiments. Participants gave higher evaluations to arguments that supported their opinions than those that refuted their prior positions. Likewise, substantial one-side bias was observed— participants were more likely to prefer a one-sided to a balanced argument. There was substantial variation in both types of bias, but we failed to find that participants of higher cognitive ability displayed less myside bias or less one-side bias. Although cognitive ability failed to associate with the magnitude of the myside bias, the strength and content of the prior opinion did predict the degree of myside bias shown. Our results indicate that cognitive ability—as defined by traditional psychometric indicators—turns out to be surprisingly independent of two of the most important critical thinking tendencies discussed in the literature.
Abstract Computer-supported collaborative argumentation can improve understanding and problem-solving skills. This study uses WebCT to explore the improvement of argumentation in asynchronous, web-based discussions through goal instructions, which are statements at the end of a discussion prompt indicating what students should achieve. In a previous study (Nussbaum 2005), the goal instruction ‘generate as many reasons as possible’ resulted in more balanced argumentation in an online environment. This study attempts to replicate this finding. It also examines the role of prior attitudes, knowledge and interest, and also the effect of elaborating on possible lines of reasoning in the question prompt. The goal instruction to generate as many reasons as possible (goal/no goal) was crossed with question elaboration (elaborated/unelaborated question) in a 2 × 2 randomized design using 131 undergraduates. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to complete the attitude survey before discussion. Results indicated that, when prior knowledge was controlled, the reason goal instruction positively affected argument development and opposing view exploration, but only for high-issue knowledge students. The sheer volume of notes created by the online environment may have caused cognitive overload for low-issue knowledge students. Question elaboration promoted balanced argumentation for all students, but especially those with low knowledge.
This study examined a new prewriting tool, argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs), which are used to write reflective opinion essays. AVDs are based on the theoretical concept of argument-counterargument integration, which involves evaluating and integrating both sides of an issue before developing a final conclusion on a controversial question. In a test of the effectiveness of AVDs, 45 undergraduates at a large, southwestern university were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Both groups wrote 4 opinion essays over a 4-week period. The experimental group also received training on using the AVDs, including instruction on criteria for weighing arguments. Results indicated that AVD training was effective in enhancing argument-counterargument integration. Furthermore, examination of integration strategies used by participants revealed a new strategy, minimization, which was not previously part of E. M. Nussbaum and G. Schraw's (2007) argument-counterargument integration framework. Minimization involves curtailing the importance or extensiveness of a problem or advantage as a heuristic shortcut for weighing advantages and disadvantages. The role of critical questions and argumentation schemata in argument-counterargument integration is discussed.
Argumentive reasoning skills are featured in the new K-12 Common Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), yet with little said about their nature or how to instill them. Distinguishing reasoning skills from writing skills, we report on a multiyear intervention that used electronically conducted dialogues on social issues as the medium to develop argumentive reasoning skills in two cohorts of young adolescents. Intervention groups demonstrated transfer of the dialogic activity to two individual essays on new topics; argument quality for these groups exceeded that of comparison groups who participated in an intervention involving the more face-valid activity of extensive essay writing practice, along with whole-class discussion. The intervention group also demonstrated greater awareness of the relevance of evidence to argument. The dialogic method thus appears to be a viable one for developing cognitive skills that the comparison-group data show do not routinely develop during this age period.
A random-effects meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided persuasive messages identifies two key moderator variables: whether the two-sided message is refutational or nonrefutational and whether the message is consumer advertising or nonadvertising. Compared with one-sided messages, refutational two-sided messages on nonadvertising topics enjoy significantly greater credibility and persuasiveness, nonrefutational two-sided messages on nonadvertising topics are not significantly different in credibility and are significantly less persuasive, refutational two-sided messages on advertising topics do not differ significantly on either credibility or persuasiveness (though few relevant studies exist), and nonrefutational two-sided messages on advertising topics enjoy significantly greater credibility but do not differ in persuasiveness. Often-mentioned moderators (such as audience initial position and education) appear not to have substantial influence on sidedness effects. Explanations of the observed effects are explored, and foci for future research are identified.
Drawing on exemplification theory and confirmation bias, this study examined exposure to online science information and subsequent attitude impacts. Participants freely browsed online messages manipulated to feature (a) either exemplar or numeric information and (b) opposing viewpoints, resulting in a 2 (exemplar vs. numeric) × 2 (supporting vs. opposing technology) within-subjects design. Online search findings pertained to four different topics: fracking, biofuels, genetically modified foods, and nanotechnology. Attitudes toward science topics were measured before and after exposure. Exemplar messages fostered longer reading among high-empathy individuals but less exposure among high-numeracy individuals. Participants preferred attitude-consistent messages, which produced attitude shifts.
Three studies examined the “myside bias” in reasoning, evaluating written arguments, and writing argumentative essays. Previous research suggests that some people possess a fact-based argumentation schema and some people have a balanced argumentation schema. I developed reliable Likert scale instruments (1-7 rating) for these constructs and conducted an evaluation of instrument validity and reliability. A myside bias in argumentative essays was predicted by the fact-based and balanced argumentation schema instruments using these individual-difference measures. Strength of opinion predicted the myside bias in generating reasons but not in writing argumentative essays. There was a weak but significant correlation between the myside bias in generating reasons and writing argumentative essays. In evaluating written arguments, the fact-based schema instrument predicted agreement and quality ratings for claims supported by factual but not nonfactual reasons. Ratings of the quality of rebutted arguments were predicted by the measures of individual differences in argumentation schemata.
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.
College-student subjects made notes about the morality of early abortion, as if they were preparing for a class discussion. Analysis of the quality of their arguments suggests that a distinction can be made between arguments based on well-supported warrants and those based on warrants that are easily criticized. The subjects also evaluated notes made by other, hypothetical, students preparing for the same discussion. Most subjects evaluated the set of arguments as better when the arguments were all on one side than when both sides were presented, even when the hypothetical subject was on the opposite side of the issue from the evaluator. Subjects who favored one- sidedness also tended to make one-sided arguments themselves. The results suggests that "myside bias" is partly caused by beliefs about what makes thinking good.
The myside bias in written argumentation entails excluding other side
information from essays. To determine the locus of the bias, 86 Experiment
1 participants were assigned to argue either for or against their preferred side
of a proposal. Participants were given either balanced or unrestricted research
instructions. Balanced research instructions significantly increased the use of
other side information. Participants’ notes, rather than search patterns,
predicted the myside bias. Participants who defined good arguments as those
that can be ‘‘proved by facts’’ were more prone towards the myside bias. In
Experiment 2, 84 participants of high and low argumentation ability read a
text called ‘‘More Than Just the Facts’’ designed to contradict this fact-based
argumentation schema. For high argumentation ability participants, the
intervention reduced the myside bias, but for low ability participants it
increased. The roots of the myside bias are underdeveloped argumentation
schemata leading to misconceptions about research and argumentation.
This study explores how different kinds of arguments are situated in academic contexts and provides an analysis of undergraduate writing assignments. Assignments were collected from the schools of business, education, engi neering, fine arts, and interdisciplinary studies as well as the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences in the College of Arts and Science. A total of 265 undergraduate writing assignments from 71 courses were analyzed. Assignments were reliably categorized into these major categories of argumentative writing: explicitly thesisdriven assignments, text analysis, empirical arguments, decisionbased arguments, proposals, short answer arguments, and compound arguments. A majority of writing assignments (59%) required argumentation. All engineering writing assignments required argumentation, as did 90% in fine arts, 80% of interdisciplinary assignments, 72% of social science assignments, 60% of education assignments, 53% in natural science, 47% in the humanities, and 46% in business. Argumentation is valued across the curriculum, yet different academic contexts require different forms of argumentation.
This research demonstrates how prior knowledge may allow for qualitative diVerences in representation of texts about controversial issues. People often experience a memory bias in favor of information with which they agree. In sev-eral experiments it was found that individuals with high prior knowledge about the topic were better able to recall argu-ments on both sides of a controversial issue (the legality of abortion, US military action in the Persian Gulf, the OJ Simpson case). Being able to integrate new information into a coherent representation seems to be one of the main advantages of prior knowledge on text comprehension. Individuals with less prior knowledge tended to recall more arguments that supported their position. The Wnal two studies extend this Wnding by manipulating the presentation of the arguments. The results suggest that giving readers an interleaved text (where supporting and opposing arguments are presented in a point/counterpoint fashion) eliminated diVerences due to knowledge.
One hundred and twelve undergraduate university students completed an informal reasoning task in which they were asked to generate arguments both for and against the position they endorsed on three separate issues. Performance on this task was evaluated by comparing the number of arguments they generated which endorsed (myside arguments) and which refuted (otherside arguments) their own position on that issue. Participants generated more myside arguments than otherside arguments on all three issues, thus consistently showing a myside bias effect on each issue. Differences in cognitive ability were not associated with individual differences in myside bias. However, year in university was a significant predictor of myside bias. The degree of myside bias decreased systematically with year in university. Year in university remained a significant predictor of myside bias even when both cognitive ability and age were statistically partialled out. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies
- C.M. Anson
Thinking across cultures: The Third International Conference on Thinking
- D.N. Perkins