Is Reasoning a Fruitful Path to Changing Minds?

References

• Baron, J. (1994). Thinking and deciding (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352, 220–224. doi:10.1126/science.aad9713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernbach, P., Rogers, T., Fox, C., & Sloman, S. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24, 939–946. doi:10.1177/0956797612464058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, M., & Keil, F. C. (2014). The illusion of argument justification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 425–433. doi:10.1037/a0032234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentive writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26, 575–607. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, part 2: Unanswered questions. In R. Scott & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0418
   Google Scholar
• Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for democracy in a Partisan age: Confronting the challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 3–34. doi:10.3102/0002831216679817
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalla, J., & Broockman, D. (2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review, 112, 148–166. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–238). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Floyd, D., Yaksick, P., Halpern, M., & Ricks, W. (2019). How does discourse among like-minded individuals affect their thinking about a complex issue? Thinking and Reasoning, 25, 365–382. doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1532460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Tracing the development of argumentive writing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communication, 33, 92–121. doi:10.1177/0741088315617157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Iordanou, K. (in press). Why do people argue past one another rather than with one another? In N. Ballantyne & D. Dunning (Eds.), Reason, bias, and inquiry: New perspectives from the crossroads of epistemology and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Lao, J. (1996). Effects of evidence on attitudes: Is polarization the norm? Psychological Science, 7, 115–120. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00340.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Modrek, A. (2018). Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse? Thinking and Reasoning, 24, 97–116. doi:10.1080/13546783.2017.1388846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papathomas, L., & Kuhn, D. (2017). Learning to argue via apprenticeship. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 159, 129–139. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. (2019, January 19). Why do people fall for fake news? Are they blinded by their political passions? Or are they just intellectually lazy? New York Times.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2014, October 17). Political polarization in action: Insights into the 2014 election from the American trends panel. Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 49–75. doi:10.1111/tops.12187
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. New York, NY: Riverhead Books (a division of Penguin Publishing Group).
   Google Scholar
• Sloman, S., & Rabb, N. (in press). Thought as a determinant of political opinion. Cognition. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, M., Henne, P., Yang, B., & DeBrigard, F. (2019). Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09526-z
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K., Toplak, M., & West, R. (2016). The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strickland, B., Silver, I., & Keil, F. (2017). The texture of causal construals: Domain-specific biases shape causal inferences from discourse. Memory & Cognition, 45, 442–455. doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0668-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar