This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in everyday life. Unlike heuristics and cognitive biases, motivational biases are typically caused by the influence of a desire or an emotion on the cognitive processes involved in judgmental and inferential reasoning. In line with the ‘motivational’ account of irrationality, I argue that these biases are the cause of a number of fallacies that ordinary arguers commit unintentionally, particularly when the commitment to a given viewpoint is very strong. Drawing on recent work in argumentation theory and psychology, I show that there are privileged links between specific types of biases and specific types of fallacies. This analysis provides further ...
Human reasoning is often biased by intuitive heuristics. A central question is whether the bias resu...
People without a background in argumentation theory possess several criteria to distinguish strong f...
The brain is composed of mutually inconsistent modules that contain contradictory beliefs. What cons...
This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in ever...
This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in ever...
It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive pr...
Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignoranc...
This paper advances a cognitive account of the rhetorical effectiveness of fallacious arguments and ...
Fallacies are a particular type of informal argument that are psychologically compelling and often u...
Reasoning researchers within cognitive psychology have spent decades examining the extent to which h...
Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. How...
Abstract: Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suff...
Although research on motivated reasoning has consistently shown that people's beliefs bias their eva...
Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ens...
Human reasoning is often biased by intuitive heuristics. A central question is whether the bias resu...
People without a background in argumentation theory possess several criteria to distinguish strong f...
The brain is composed of mutually inconsistent modules that contain contradictory beliefs. What cons...
This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in ever...
This paper focuses on the effects of motivational biases on the way people reason and debate in ever...
It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive pr...
Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignoranc...
This paper advances a cognitive account of the rhetorical effectiveness of fallacious arguments and ...
Fallacies are a particular type of informal argument that are psychologically compelling and often u...
Reasoning researchers within cognitive psychology have spent decades examining the extent to which h...
Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. How...
Abstract: Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suff...
Although research on motivated reasoning has consistently shown that people's beliefs bias their eva...
Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ens...
Human reasoning is often biased by intuitive heuristics. A central question is whether the bias resu...
People without a background in argumentation theory possess several criteria to distinguish strong f...
The brain is composed of mutually inconsistent modules that contain contradictory beliefs. What cons...