Reaching a verdict

Green, David W.; McCloy, Rachel

doi:10.1080/1354678034000268

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As warrants have emerged as an important part of the argument‐based decision process, a limitation of this study is that different types of warrants were not coded separately and future research could explore them more to find how they differ. Green and McCloy () found that the strength of arguments influenced the conclusions drawn by naïve participants. It is likely that this would also be the case for experts, and so, it would be informative to discover how argument strength is assessed and how this relates to the type of warrant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In many naturalistic situations, people make decisions analytically in which they cannot readily evaluate one course of action over another because of the complexity of the situation or lack of information about it (Green & McCloy, ; Lipshitz, ; Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, ). Therefore, they cannot or do not apply classical theories of choice (e.g., Edwards, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Naturalistic decision making through argumentation: Resolving labour disputes

Ramiah

Banks

2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Naturalistic decision making (NDM) research has been successful in describing fast, intuitive decision‐making by experts in complex, time‐pressured situations. However, less is known about how experts make naturalistic decisions when they think analytically. Previous research suggests that this process involves constructing a story of the situation to explain and simulate the consequences of decisions, but we hypothesize that explicit argumentation is valuable when it is necessary to demonstrate the accuracy of a decision and to explicitly resolve inconsistent and uncertain information. This study investigates analytic NDM by contrasting experts and novices resolving labour disputes. Fifty expert and novice labour officers resolved labour cases whilst thinking aloud. The verbal protocols were analysed using Toulmin's argument model. Expert decision‐makers made more accurate decisions, used more warrants (in other words, reasoned justifications) during the decision process, and increased use of warrants was associated with accurate decision‐making. In addition, a decision aid was developed in the form of a checklist that encouraged decision‐makers to explicitly consider components of the argument. This increased the frequency of warrants and the decision accuracy of both novice and expert decision‐makers. Together, these findings imply that accurate and expert analytic decision‐making in this domain involves a process of argumentation and in particular the use of explicit warrants linking evidence to conclusions. Practitioner points Analytic naturalistic decision making in this domain involves argumentation Superior decision accuracy arises from exploring more reasoned justifications A checklist encouraging all components of the argument to be made explicit improves decision accuracy in both novice and expert decision‐makers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Naturalistic decision making through argumentation: Resolving labour disputes

Ramiah

Banks

2015

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present context, such a counterfactual conditional serves an argument for an alternative course of action. Green and McCloy (2003) showed that individuals used arguments of this type in deciding their verdict in a mock legal case. Those finding in favour of the plaintiff reasoned that if the defendant had not posted their message on the Web the plaintiff's company would have survived.…”

Section: Mental Simulation and Prior Arguments In Opinion Shift: An Imentioning

confidence: 98%

“…We take an argument to consist of a claim (to behave in a certain way or to express a certain view) backed by an associated reason (see Voss & Means, 1991). Everyday experience and empirical evidence indicates that opinion can be swayed by relevant arguments (e.g., Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, 2000;Green & McCloy, 2003;Green, McClelland, Muckli, & Simmons, 1999, Experiment 3). However the impact of such arguments might depend on the future possibilities individuals consider.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental simulation and argument

Green

Applebaum²,

Tong³

2006

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The difficulty of recovering such a logical form has led many theorists to argue that logic is irrelevant to inferences in daily life (see e.g. Toulmin, 1958, and for an empirical test of his approach, see Green & McCloy, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Against Logical Form

Johnson‐Laird

2010

PSYCHOL BELG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

, for help and encouragement over the years. The paper is dedicated to André Vandierendonck, a stalwart investigator of mental models. AbstractAn old view in logic going back to Aristotle is that an inference is valid in virtue of its logical form. Many psychologists have adopted the same point of view about human reasoning: the first step is to recover the logical form of an inference, and the second step is to apply rules of inference that match these forms in order to prove that the conclusion follows from the premises. The present paper argues against this idea. The logical form of an inference transcends the grammatical forms of the sentences used to express it, because logical form also depends on context. Context is not readily expressed in additional premises. And the recovery of logical form leads ineluctably to the need for infinitely many axioms to capture the logical properties of relations. An alternative theory is that reasoning depends on mental models, and this theory obviates the need to recover logical form. introduction

show abstract

Reaching a verdict

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

Naturalistic decision making through argumentation: Resolving labour disputes

Naturalistic decision making through argumentation: Resolving labour disputes

Mental simulation and argument

Against Logical Form

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About