Natural-Born Arguers: Teaching How to Make the Best of Our Reasoning Abilities

REFERENCES

• Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, L. J., Lucas, E. J., Miles, J. N., & Gale, A. G. (2003). Inspection times and the selection task: What do eye-movements reveal about relevance effects? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 1053–1077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: Demarcating arguments in real life. Argumentation, 29, 431–456.
   Google Scholar
• Boudry, M., Vlerick, M., & McKay, R. (2015). Can evolution get us off the hook? Evaluating the ecological defence of human rationality. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 524–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effect of financial incentives on performance in experiments: A review and capital-labor theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, R. T. (2012). Becoming a critical thinker: A guide for the new millennium (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.
   Google Scholar
• Castelain, T., Bernard, S., Van der Henst, J.-B., & Mercier, H. (in press). The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony. Developmental Science.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelain, T., Girotto, V., Jamet, F., & Mercier, H. (2016). Evidence for benefits of argumentation in a Mayan indigenous population. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 337–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanel, O., Luchini, S., Massoni, S., & Vergnaud, J.-C. (2011). Impact of information on intentions to vaccinate in a potential epidemic: Swine-origin Influenza A (H1N1). Social Science & Medicine, 72, 142–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claidière, N., Trouche, E., & Mercier, H. (n.d.). Argumentation and the diffusion of counter-intuitive beliefs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65(2), 110–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2010). Introduction to logic (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 199–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 133–152.
   Google Scholar
• Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, 187–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science. Cognition, 50, 41–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darmstadter, H. (2013). A pragmatist alternative to an argumentative theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 472–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31(1), 61–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehaene, S. (1999). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DiCarlo, C. (2011). How to become a really good pain in the ass: A critical thinker's guide to asking the right questions. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar, R. I. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681–694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ennis, R. H. (2000). An outline of goals for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. Retrieved from http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/outlinegoalsctcurassess3.html
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454–459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2011). From Encyclopaedia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational differences in the perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 355–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 62–88). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900–901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, J. (2010). The authority of Wikipedia. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference (pp. 1–24). Windsor, Canada: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
   Google Scholar
• Gopnik, A. (1998). Explanation as orgasm. Minds and Machines, 8(1), 101–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change'. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147–170). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (Eds.). (2012). Reasoning and argumentation. A special issue of thinking and reasoning. London, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1043598
   Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., Šorm, E., & Schellens, P. J. (2014). Arguing about the likelihood of consequences: Laypeople's criteria to distinguish strong arguments from weak ones. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(1), 77–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., Timmers, R., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Arguing about desirable consequences: What constitutes a convincing argument? Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 394–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2005). Thinking and reasoning: A reader's guide. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 18, 225–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141–1151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd rev.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16(1), 1–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J., & Slovic, P. (2010). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn't, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 501–516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koenig, M. A. (2012). Beyond semantic accuracy: Preschoolers evaluate a speaker's reasons. Child Development, 83, 1051–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory and Cognition, 6, 107–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of arguments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardi, D., Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2015). Plausibility judgments in conceptual change and epistemic cognition. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 35–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannes, A. E. (2009). Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds? The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management Science, 55, 1267–1279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayr, E. (1983). How to carry out the adaptationist program. The American Naturalist, 121, 324–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Baron, J., Ramos, J., Gurcay, B., Fincher, K., … Tetlock, P.E. (2014). Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psychological Science, 25, 1106–1115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (in press). Reasoning and argumentation. In V. A. Thompson & L. J. Ball (Eds.), International handbook of thinking & reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2011a). On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11, 85–113.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2011b). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26, 177–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2011c). What good is moral reasoning? Mind & Society, 10, 131–148.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2011d). When experts argue: Explaining the best and the worst of reasoning. Argumentation, 25, 313–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2012). Some clarifications about the argumentative theory of reasoning. A reply to Santibáñez Yañez (2012). Informal Logic, 32, 259–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2013). The function of reasoning: Argumentative and pragmatic alternatives. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 488–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H. (2016). Confirmation (or myside) bias. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (2nd ed., pp. 99–114). London, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., Bernard, S., & Clément, F. (2014). Early sensitivity to arguments: How preschoolers weight circular arguments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 125, 102–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., Bonnier, P., & Trouche, E. (2016). Why don't people produce better arguments? In L. Macchi, M. Bagassi, & R. Viale (Eds.), Cognitive unconscious and human rationality (pp. 205–218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Heintz, C. (2014). Scientists' argumentative reasoning. Topoi, 33, 513–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33, 243–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (n.d.). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011a). Argumentation: Its adaptiveness and efficacy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 94–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011b). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., Trouche, E., Yama, H., Heintz, C., & Girotto, V. (2015). Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 341–355.
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minozzi, W., Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., & Lazer, D. M. (2015). Field experiment evidence of substantive, attributional, and behavioral persuasion by members of Congress in online town halls. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 3937–3942.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miton, H., & Mercier, H. (2015). Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 633–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshman, D., & Geil, M. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 231–248.
   Google Scholar
• Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 365–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Argumentation, critical questions, and integrative stratagem: Enhancing young adolescents' reasoning about current events. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olivola, C. Y., Funk, F., & Todorov, A. (2014). Social attributions from faces bias human choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 566–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 323–390). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111, 781–799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., & Clarke, S. N. (2013). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Reserach Association.
   Google Scholar
• Santibáñez Yáñez, C. (2012). Mercier and Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning: From psychology of reasoning to argumentation studies. Informal Logic, 32(1), 132–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2008). Defining biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 387–395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2004). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
   Google Scholar
• Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (Vol. 2). London, UK: Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (2004). The robot's rebellion. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 129–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 289–338). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Winne, P. H. (in press). Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: A potential account for the backfire effect. Discourse Processes.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trouche, E., Johansson, P., Hall, L., & Mercier, H. (in press). The selective laziness of reasoning. Cognitive Science.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1958–1971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trouche, E., Shao, J., & Mercier, H. (n.d.). How is argument evaluation biased? Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 153–160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1993). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacies. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology: I (pp. 106–137). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 29, 183–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar