Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments

Abstract

Argumentation constitutes 1 of the most common forms of human interaction. Yet despite its pervasiveness, relatively little psychological research has been conducted on the topic. This article serves as an introduction to this research and has 2 goals. One is to discuss a number of general issues relevant to the study of argumentation, including the definition, goals and functions, structure, evaluation of arguments and argumentation, and the relation of narrativity and argumentation. The 2nd goal is to describe some examples of the existing psychological research on argumentation, with emphasis on articles in this special issue. Topics include argumentation by children, argumentation skill, writing argumentative text, argumentation and case-based change, argumentation and critical thinking, and argumentation and narrativity in a legal context. Argumentation constitutes one of the most common forms of human interaction. Yet despite its pervasiveness, relatively little psychological research has been conducted on the topic. This special issue of Discourse Processes addresses the topic of argumentation, with a number of articles illustrating how individuals employ argumentation in various contexts. This article serves as an introduction to these contributions and has two goals. One is to discuss a number of general issues relevant to the study of argumentation, and the other is to describe some examples of psychological research on argumentation, with emphasis on articles in this special issue.

Understanding genetic breast cancer risk: Processing loci of the BRCA Gist Intelligent Tutoring System

“…An argument is, at minimum, a claim supported by a reason (Toulmin, 1958; Voss & Van Dyke, 2001; Wolfe, Britt & Butler, 2009) and an important question about the argumentation dialogues is whether participants actually make arguments. We subjected each of the argumentation dialogues to an analysis using rubrics assessing the presence or absence of elements or argumentation (Cedillos-Whynott, Wolfe, Widmer, Brust-Renck, Weil, & Reyna, in press; Wolfe, Britt & Butler, 2009).…”

The effectiveness of argumentation in tutorial dialogues with an Intelligent Tutoring System for genetic risk of breast cancer

“…Kuhn (1993) theorizes that this type of reasoning is quite similar to scientific reasoning, in that it involves skills necessary in the development of critical thinking. The ability to think critically is a valuable skill in a learning environment because it allows a person to evaluate new information and integrate it into what they already know, a process known as knowledge-transforming (Voss & Van Dyke, 2001; Wiley & Voss, 1999). Along with this, Butler and Britt (2011) have shown that argument-type tutorials help students in qualitatively improving essays.…”

Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry

“…According the framework of Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP), an argument includes six components: a claim, data supporting the claim, qualifiers that indicate the strength of the claim, warrants for connecting the claim and the data, backing that strengthens the warrants, and rebuttals that indicate exceptions or limitations to the claim (Simon, 2008;Toulmin, 1958). Although the use of TAP as an analytical tool for argument has been subjected to various criticisms (Voss & Van Dyke, 2001), it remains an effective way to structure an argument or design an argument scaffold. Lin, Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2015) noted that TAP offers a complete structure to construct a high-quality argument by fully and accurately connecting various components to the issue discussed.…”